Bergmassiv

[mani1602]

Hi there,

i´ve done a new scene with mountains and "athmosphere - glowing-shadow" or how ever!!

Thanks for watching and comments
[attach=#]

[littlecannon]

Nice and depthy feel to this image, sun rays are cool... I think the clouds would benefit from more samples and a higher quality. What were your setting for this?
Cheers, Simon.

[Tangled-Universe]

Good start. It would be nice to see some vegetation in the valleys. There are some really good free models available in the announcement section and file sharing section of these forums.

Nice and depthy feel to this image, sun rays are cool... I think the clouds would benefit from more samples and a higher quality. What were your setting for this?
Cheers, Simon.

The cloudsamples are fine as far as I can tell. The "noise" you see is rather from the fractal than lack of samples. Otherwise the inner parts of the clouds would have grain, which is not really the case here.

I'd feed the output of the cloudfractal through a color adjust shader and inside the color adjust shader set the blackpoint to something around 0.05 - 0.1 for starters. This will remove lots of the small noise from the fractal.
To get more contrasty features in the clouds you might reduce the gamma in the color adjust shader a bit as well.

Cheers,
Martin

[mani1602]

i used two cloud layers with each 32 Samples. Athmosphere 128 Samples.

I'd feed the output of the cloudfractal through a color adjust shader and inside the color adjust shader set the blackpoint to something around 0.05 - 0.1 for starters. This will remove lots of the small noise from the fractal.
To get more contrasty features in the clouds you might reduce the gamma in the color adjust shader a bit as well.

Cheers,
Martin

Thats a good advise. I will try this at the weekend.

[Tangled-Universe]

In regard to samples and quality of clouds:

The amount of samples tells very little about the actual quality / expected result.
It's better to mention the quality setting number.

I'll explain using a very simple example:

Imagine a cloudlayer which uses 32 samples which equals a quality setting of 1.0
The density of this cloudlayer = 0.05
The depth of this cloudlayer = 1000m

If you increase the density to say ~0.5 you'll see that to get 1.0 quality you'll suddenly need way more than 32 samples.
Same accounts for the depth. Increase this and there are more samples needed to get the same 1.0 quality.
Increasing both will make this effect even stronger.

I hope this makes it clear that whenever you post settings here that dropping numbers for samples is not of much use.
Lots of people make this mistake; you can find numerous trouble-shoot topics here about "I have grainy clouds but I'm using 500 samples"....now you'll understand why this doesn't necessarily tell much.

Martin

[littlecannon]

I did mean the quality and should have said so Martin knows far more about this than I do and has given you sound advice. There are some good tutorials on clouds, one by FrankB comes to mind on the NWDA site and plenty more here, if not tutorials, there are loads of threads on them.
Cheers,
Simon.