Cool Vue 7.5 Image

Started by efflux, May 27, 2009, 11:29:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

domdib

Agree about EXR. There is an interesting quality to the light here. What exactly do you mean by rendering the atmosphere separately? And how did you do the blending? (Sorry, my image manipulation skills are still in their infancy  :))

efflux

I can't remember exactly. I used a grayscale of just atmosphere so ground was black. I think I used this as a blend between the sky and ground layers (exposed differently by adjusting in Cinepaint). However, I know I did something wrong. Didn't follow the correct idea somehow and there was some slight issue and workaround I had to perform. I'll do another render like this some time and experiment again.

domdib

Thanks for that. Perhaps this thread on alpha channels is related?
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6066.0 Sounds like it can be used to mask the atmosphere.

efflux

I didn't do things quite right but it's something I want to try again. It all depends on the scene though, whether the ground is in shadows or poorly lit.

scott8933

There would be a few pretty easy ways to do it - you could generate a z-buffer matte and use that to adjust two versions of the images separately. That's the easiest but I don't remember if TG does z-buffers or not.

The old-school 3D approach would be to render a second version of the scene: turn off all lights and atmospheric effects (no fog, no clouds, etc). Make the sky a flat white and 100% luminescent. Render that, and you'll have an image you can use as a matte.

Alternately you could put a big flat plane off in the distance (perpindicular to the camera), also 100% white and 100% luminescent, then render with sky turned off completely. Again, this will give you a nice matte where your background is white and everything in the foreground (that rock formation for example) is black.

Then just comp it up in Photoshop or AfterEffects using this new render as the matte to separate the two adjustments. You'll probably want to have some blur where the horizon is, if your adjustments are drastically different. A little blur everywhere in the matte can help too, since in real photos you tend to get bloom any time a super-bright area meets a dark one.

Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
There would be a few pretty easy ways to do it - you could generate a z-buffer matte and use that to adjust two versions of the images separately. That's the easiest but I don't remember if TG does z-buffers or not.

The old-school 3D approach would be to render a second version of the scene: turn off all lights and atmospheric effects (no fog, no clouds, etc). Make the sky a flat white and 100% luminescent. Render that, and you'll have an image you can use as a matte.

Alternately you could put a big flat plane off in the distance (perpindicular to the camera), also 100% white and 100% luminescent, then render with sky turned off completely. Again, this will give you a nice matte where your background is white and everything in the foreground (that rock formation for example) is black.

Then just comp it up in Photoshop or AfterEffects using this new render as the matte to separate the two adjustments. You'll probably want to have some blur where the horizon is, if your adjustments are drastically different. A little blur everywhere in the matte can help too, since in real photos you tend to get bloom any time a super-bright area meets a dark one.

Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.

This tutorial covers all your suggestions :)

http://nwda.webnode.com/news/creating-a-dof-in-tg2/

Hetzen

Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.

I agree, After Effects is pretty good at that. Have you played much with Nuke?

scott8933

I've used a little Nuke (actually I've tried every compositing app I can get my hands on!) but my main needs are animation and graphic design, and AE is really the only decent solution for that, unfortunately. I think After Effects has totally stagnated, that its lack of competition in motion graphics has let Adobe get LAZY as hell. But here we are, stuck with it.

The high end apps like Nuke/Shake/Fusion just don't have much support for hardcore graphics. I guess the big bucks are in compositing. I'd love the methodology of Houdini applied to the graphics ability of AE. But I'm probably in the vast minority of designers who would want such a beast.

Node-based can't be beat, we all know that!

If my main work was in VFX and compositing, I'd have dumped AE years ago in favor of Shake or Fusion, and everyone I talk to these days says that Nuke is definitely the way to go right now. I'd love to hear other opinions on it from other designers - maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance. But I need very strong typographic and animation support. Didn't seem like it had much in that department. Plus I don't think I could live without Trapcode Particular!


Quote from: Hetzen on June 12, 2009, 05:33:54 PM
Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.

I agree, After Effects is pretty good at that. Have you played much with Nuke?

Hetzen

You and I are very much on the same page. I'd say 90% of what I do is motion graphics, ie more layout and masks. But am increasingly being sucked into more realism, which to me is a good thing. Trapcode Particular I probably use in 50% of what I do, and mostly in unexpected ways, although it does have it's limits. I'm also finding Form to be rather interesting outside the box. Shine! LOL. How many people make a living off that one plugin?

I've just started on Nuke, as Shake seems to have been swallowed up by Apple, but have already seen the benefits in green screen and node application. Still I think AE reigns king in motion graphics, especially with expressions.

Jack

for my comp I always use an exr which I run through photomatix naturally ;D
I then use a mixture of photoshop and lightroom in photoshop I use the overlay filter alot which brings out a vivid quality 2 my pictures as well as the flaming pear atherize plugin which adds a dream effect to your pircture as well as the soft glare plugin then with a mixture of light ray brushes exposure settings colour adjustments in lightroom brings out the maximum amount of detail light and colour. :o
My terragen gallery:
http://wetbanana.deviantart.com/

comvat25

Just want to say, I have been using vue for about 6 months and thought about TG2 and trying that out.. but after reading many threads and seeing the TG2 attitude.. i'm kinda disgusted.  So many vue haters, tg2 can do this, that etc better. Not really... it all depends on the artist there both equally as powerful tools..  You say "theses are new 7.5 renders and it seems it doesnt have depth like tg2" well DUH cause thats the setting in the atmosphere it doesnt mean vue cant fix that.. its the artist preference.  Just annoyed to read so much VUE hate when probably 60% of who tried it and disliked it dont even know how to really work in it.  Its ez to open a program and hit add terrain, clouds etc and hit render but to play around with complex settings to get advanced results can take time and most of the time those people are doing bigger things then just hobby work so their images are not posted.

I browsed through tons of tg2 images on this forum and some were terrible but they are learning experiences.. I seen the capabilities of tg2 and both vue7 and they both can create great things.

p.s those images were created in vue cause I seen the making of- used function editor with procedural fractals.. lots of control.

Seth

Hey ! Welcome on the forum !
That's a good first post... i mean, coming in and writing you feel disgusted about the attitude of TG2 users... that's a smart attitude ;)

Henry Blewer

Have any of you tried Blender? The new version has better compositing, material node structure, and it will do many of the things that 'professional' (i.e. expensive) products do. Blender is free, so it would not hurt to look at it. The interface is not the most user friendly. Fortunately, there are a lot of good (and bad) tutorials.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: njeneb on August 02, 2009, 08:23:09 AM
Have any of you tried Blender? The new version has better compositing, material node structure, and it will do many of the things that 'professional' (i.e. expensive) products do. Blender is free, so it would not hurt to look at it. The interface is not the most user friendly. Fortunately, there are a lot of good (and bad) tutorials.

I hardly can't wait to get some vacation/time-off and then I'll definitely dive into Blender. Hopefully it's bad weather then so I won't feel too sorry for myself sitting inside being a nerd instead of enjoying the good weather :P lol

Henry Blewer

There is never enough nerd time! ;D
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T