Fanyarë

Rhalph · September 10, 2009, 12:31:21 PM

The first TG2 render I'm really satisfied with...
Render size (2960x1050) set to fit my dual screen (1680x1050 + 1280x1024).

There was a lot of grain in the render, so I had to increase the clouds quality like I never did before :
- Quality 8 (1024 samples) for the big clouds
- Quality 13 (329 samples) for the fog-like clouds
- 256 samples for the atmosphere (I just saw that - I thought it was only 192 -_-)

Render time : 56 hours at detail 1.05 (yeah, I'm a bit crazy). AA 6, GI 3/3, GI blur radius 5.

RArcher · September 10, 2009, 12:39:29 PM

Nice one. The interaction between the sun and the atmosphere is really nice.

Henry Blewer · September 10, 2009, 01:09:03 PM

You have done a great job here. I look forward to seeing more!

PorcupineFloyd · September 10, 2009, 01:17:06 PM

This is truly fantastic. And I mean it literally

Did you really required a detail of 1.05 and relative GI detail at 3? Have you tried doing crops in lower settings? I'm curious about the difference.

Rhalph · September 10, 2009, 01:29:35 PM

Thanks all

I think a lower detail would have still given a very good quality, but I'm not able to put a detail lower than 1. Something in my brain that says "noooo, no, it's bad !" ^^'
I always had a very old computer for my renders, and now that I have a good one, I can't help but put insane settings... For now.

Zairyn Arsyn · September 10, 2009, 01:36:18 PM

looks great, i like the light on the clouds

sooner or later I'm going to make render for my dual screens at my job

Volker Harun · September 10, 2009, 01:39:37 PM

The colours, the curvature of the planets, the overall composition drives my imagination ... lots of details that keep me interested. I am glad that You are satisfied with it ,-)

Seth · September 10, 2009, 01:52:18 PM

Quote from: Rhalph on September 10, 2009, 01:29:35 PM
I'm not able to put a detail lower than 1. Something in my brain that says "noooo, no, it's bad !" ^^'

we share the same problem

PG · September 10, 2009, 01:59:09 PM

Yeah, guilty pleasure. I think I saw this posted on facebook a couple of days ago.

PorcupineFloyd · September 10, 2009, 02:06:52 PM

You wouldn't see a difference between 0.8 and 1.0, not mentioning values above 1 :-)

Higher overall quality values are needed if you're doing some specific vegetation work or things including transparency (like water with visible beach for example).

I was starting with Q:0.9 and gradually decreased even as low as Q:0.7 for procedural-only renders (compensated with 2 or 3 more AA samples).

I've never completed anything with cloud samples at 1024 though. Respect

littlecannon · September 10, 2009, 02:10:07 PM

Spanking gorgeous...

Naoo · September 10, 2009, 05:44:39 PM

Hi

ahhhhhh wonderful...

ciao
Naoo

Seth · September 11, 2009, 01:56:28 AM

Quote from: PorcupineFloyd on September 10, 2009, 02:06:52 PM

I was starting with Q:0.9 and gradually decreased even as low as Q:0.7 for procedural-only renders (compensated with 2 or 3 more AA samples).

I always do detail 1 for final render and my AA usually is between 9 for no vegetation render to like 15 for vegetation's ones...
I agree that he may not see the difference between 1 and 1.05 but I really think he will if he put 0.7

PorcupineFloyd · September 11, 2009, 05:32:56 AM

Yes, 0.7 would be too low for this one. I usually do my renders at resolutions 3600x2400 or bigger, so 0.7 is enough

Seth · September 11, 2009, 10:47:11 AM

I usually do 1200x750 or 1440x900 and always use 1 ! lol