Yosemite Valley - V2 on page 2

Started by Tangled-Universe, January 10, 2010, 10:54:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

FrankB

THIS 3 image composiiton is telling a long story about how TG2 can turn shit into gold, if in the hands of a savvy artist :)
It is absolutely amazing - and I mean it - how this app can keep adding and adding details until the result becomes barely distinguishable from a photo. Thanks for putting this together, Martin!

Regards;
Frank

Seth

the render without water looks really good, with all those fake stones !

Gannaingh

I agree with Seth, The stone are quite possibly my favorite part of the image :)

domdib

Very interesting - look forward to seeing more of this sort of thing at NWDA.

Dune

QuoteA crop from a 3000+ px render showing some of the displacements and fake-grass shader.
The fake grass shader uses intersect underlying as a base, which also has the darkest green color.
On top are 2 other colors layered, all with 5 degrees less slope than its parent.

With all due respect, Martin, would you really need such a sophisticated setup for the (distant) grass? It will probably take render time/memory, and in this crop I don't really see an improvement over 'ordinary' mix of some colors and slope restriction. Correct me if I see this wrong!

---Dune

Tangled-Universe

#35
Quote from: Dune on January 12, 2010, 03:30:47 AM
QuoteA crop from a 3000+ px render showing some of the displacements and fake-grass shader.
The fake grass shader uses intersect underlying as a base, which also has the darkest green color.
On top are 2 other colors layered, all with 5 degrees less slope than its parent.

With all due respect, Martin, would you really need such a sophisticated setup for the (distant) grass? It will probably take render time/memory, and in this crop I don't really see an improvement over 'ordinary' mix of some colors and slope restriction. Correct me if I see this wrong!

---Dune

I'll make some crops to show how it looks as a single, double and complete layer and then you can see for yourself. I think it makes a difference and I like the way it looks, even though you can't see it easily :) and by the way, it's just one single surface layer with 2 childs, not sophisticated at all. The 2 extra layers of color-variation at different slopes barely costs extra rendertime as well.
The displacement intersection of the base-layer is more render-expensive, but if you wish I can also show you the non displaced intersected vs displaced intersected.
When using this terrain/tgd for other POV's it is quite likely that it is more exposed and then it is always nice to have this ready to go, even though it takes very little time to set up.
You must also not miss that I'm not only trying to show an image, but also a way of using WM2 generated terrains as a base and then to show how easy you can make something nice of it with TG2-only-shading.

EoinArmstrong

Wow - that's some amazing instruction right there - very inspiring, dude

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: EoinArmstrong on January 12, 2010, 05:27:55 AM
Wow - that's some amazing instruction right there - very inspiring, dude

Thank you, you're welcome :)
I'm interested as well in learning some of your WM-generated terrains some time ;D

domdib

It would be interesting to compare the non-displaced intersected with the displaced, to see the difference. Do you regard it as more realistic?

Tangled-Universe

#39
Quote from: domdib on January 12, 2010, 06:02:48 AM
It would be interesting to compare the non-displaced intersected with the displaced, to see the difference. Do you regard it as more realistic?

Of course I do, but do you? ;)
What do you think how displacement intersection would differ in look compared to a flat surface layer?

Dune

Thanks Martin, I'll give your procedure a go. Sounds good. I'd be very interested to see the differences. And of course, if you travel around for different POV's you might encounter an area where it really makes a difference.

domdib

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 12, 2010, 06:05:21 AM

Of course I do, but do you? ;)
What do you think how displacement intersection would differ in look compared to a flat surface layer?

I'm not sure - are you just teasing here? Go on, show us the difference!

Henry Blewer

Martin, the explanation you have given is great. Thank you for sharing it!
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: domdib on January 12, 2010, 08:13:38 AM
I'm not sure - are you just teasing here? Go on, show us the difference!

I'm teasing as well indeed :) I was also curious to see if you'd know the difference of the result on forehand.

There are quite some examples already which show the nice-ness of displacement intersection, hence the latest work of Dune for example.
Displacement intersection allows to create smooth patches of surface layer on top of rough terrain, while normal surface layers would be as rough as the underlying terrain and would exactly follow it. Displacement intersection doesn't and "overspans" negatively displaced parts which gives smoother results.

If you're not convinced by this principle and in the application in my image, then I could show you the difference of course, no problem :)

domdib

Ah, I get it. I can see how, for snow, for example, or indeed most surface shaders that aren't displacement-based, it would be important. Thanks!