High res QTVR test

Started by bigben, March 05, 2007, 07:43:17 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

bigben

March 05, 2007, 07:43:17 pm Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 07:57:59 pm by bigben
I'll close this post off now since I started a new one in Image sharing (with a cylindrical version of the pano as well). Feel free to leave comments there

http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1178.0


<Up-Update> Restarted rendering this now that a) I got the sequence rendering working and b) installed the latest TG update. The combination of these two has slightly affected the density shaders of the populations which has repositioned the trees. Also tweaked a few things that were bugging me in the first (and replaced GI with fill lights) Progress should be faster now :)

Now running an on the fly render and conversion just for the hell of it. Online version will now automatically update until completed.
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tgdemo/tetons_v6.mov
</Up-Update>

<Update> Render stopped at 12%...  Very slow with manual frame changes.  I've added a render without objects as a background onto which I'll drop the tiles with objects.  The blue gaps in the clouds are due to the use of whole numbers to scale the cloud's density fractal (1,1,3 in this case).  I'll be changing the clouds and dropping in the fixed version later (using 1.01, 1.02, 5.02) ((No, appears to be an acceleration cache issue?)). 

Concentrated on adding some more grass at the bottom to get a better feel for the model. I like it, even if it is a bit green.

[attachthumb=#1]

QTVR (1Mb)
</update>

I told you I like seeing how far I can push something until it breaks ;)

There are some other potential issues relating to rendering panoramas that I hadn't considered before.  The first one that struck me was running out of RAM to render a single frame. I have a lot of objects in my project, and trying to render a large 90° tile with lots of objects usually crashed before the render finished.

I picked the camera angle that looked through the most trees and set about finding a tile size I could render. I ended up with a 10° tile of 100x100 pixels. Setting up the camera keyframes was pretty easy with excel, and a little more work converted the same numbers to a PTStitcher script to stitch the frames. A quick test to check it all worked: http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tgdemo/pano_10deg.mov (1.9Mb... sorry max. jpeg quality, 3600 pixels wide)

The stitching was not entirely straightforward as 614 temp files were too much for my RAM (614 x 18.5Mb for my 3600x1800 panorama). I split it up into batches of 100 tiles and then merged the output panoramas in Photoshop. A little bit of mucking around but nearly all of it can be semi-automated so it's relatively painless.  I'll probably change the PTStitcher script to just output a TIFF panorama for each tile (it includes an alpha) and then create a Photoshop action to merge them together, cutting it down to two steps.

Now all I have to do is render the other 580 frames of my project:
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tgdemo/tetons001.mov

The blue spruce tree in the foreground is slowing down the render at the moment. This population and my grass have reflectivity and translucency set to make them look pretty at the expense of render time.

king_tiger_666

March 05, 2007, 07:53:08 pm #1 Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 08:03:54 pm by king_tiger_666
looks like you have alot of manual camera changes to  make in tg2 while rendering ;D ;D

the second pano will look great once its finshed.. BTW how long has it taken so far and how long will rendering another 500 frames take?

<a href="www.hobbies.nzaus.co.nz/">My  Terragen Downloads & Gallery</a>

bigben

I'm manually rendering on one computer at the moment and trying to produce a workaround to automate the rendering on another (I have Deep + animation).  Render times are around 6 minutes for sky, going up to 4 hours for a horizontal angle looking through the tree close to the camera.  I was a bit shocked by this at first until I (intermittently) watched a frame render and saw all of the trees in the background. Once I get past this tree the times should halve or better (I hope) as the close up tree really does take a long time to render.  There's also a lake visible in the distance to the left of the tree, and possibly another lake visible through a small gap in the trees to the right.

I should really do a low quality render of this as a preview. I haven't actually checked out the final distribution of the blue spruce population. I just wanted to look at a finished product with high quality render settings to see what else needs tweaking (other than the stuff I already know)

DiscoBall

Great work! The second one had a halo feeling, you know how its a ring? :P

Well, anyway, nice work. The finished result for the second one should be VERY pleasing. I can see the grass and trees look very nice, however the grass is exceptional. Maybe you should have a grass fields for a QTVR next time :P

Heh, by the way, nice work for getting the Uni of Melbourne to host :P

bigben

Quote from: DiscoBall on March 06, 2007, 04:02:14 am
Great work! The second one had a halo feeling, you know how its a ring? :P

Well, anyway, nice work. The finished result for the second one should be VERY pleasing. I can see the grass and trees look very nice, however the grass is exceptional. Maybe you should have a grass fields for a QTVR next time :P



Thanks. Yes I think a grassy field with rolling hills would be a good way to show off the grass texturing.

Quote from: DiscoBall on March 06, 2007, 04:02:14 am
...
Heh, by the way, nice work for getting the Uni of Melbourne to host :P


It helps when your the server admin :P

dhavalmistry

Hey ben, nice work...

can you tell me/us how to make QTVR's??
"His blood-terragen level is 99.99%...he is definitely drunk on Terragen!"

nvseal

Quote from: dhavalmistry on March 06, 2007, 10:33:06 am
Hey ben, nice work...

can you tell me/us how to make QTVR's??

Agreed (even though I probably don't have the software I would need ::)) Great work so far bigben, it's looking fantastic. Can't wait for the finished version. Are you using xfrog grass?

bigben

March 06, 2007, 01:51:18 pm #7 Last Edit: March 06, 2007, 06:43:41 pm by bigben
I've already posted the software I use here:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=853.0

Attached are my render and camera nodes. I have the animation version so I've set up the camera angles for all of the frames... even though I'm manually rendering each frame, it's very easy changing camera angles.

I'll add the clip file and the stitching script/photoshop action for this high res project to my next supplement to the file sharing post above. (I haven't made the Photoshop action yet)

Quote from: nvseal on March 06, 2007, 11:46:07 am
... Are you using xfrog grass?


No. This is a free 3DS model I downloaded and converted. It's different to the model in  this post: http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=933.0 but it uses the same surfacing which is definitely the key to its appearance. Unless you're getting *really* close to grass the model can be quite basic and still look very real.

bigben

I've posted the various scripts I used to create this panorama in File Sharing
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=853.msg8090#msg8090

old_blaggard

It's looking really good, big B.
http://www.terragen.org - A great Terragen resource with models, contests, galleries, and forums.

bigben

There's just enough rendered now to start getting a better feel for the objects in this QTVR.

View QTVR (1Mb)


Will

Nice, but whats with the tree to the left? Great terrien by the way, can wait to see what more you come up with!

Regards,

Will
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

bigben

Quote from: Will on March 14, 2007, 07:22:44 pm
Nice, but whats with the tree to the left? Great terrien by the way, can wait to see what more you come up with!

Regards,

Will


Hmmm the tree on the left in a forest of treees??? ;)  I'll guess that you're referring to a wee grand fir that looks a little out of place just to the left of the closest spruce....  'cos when I first saw it I thought  "What's up with the tree on the left?"

I used 3 populations of the grand fir model (scale ranges 0.7 - 1) using each of the XFrog models.  This li'l tree just got a bit separated from the rest.  It does look a little out of place but this may not be as noticeable once there are more trees to the left.

The tree densities are a bit low for my liking which has contributed to this "problem" but then I'm pushing the limits of my RAM as it is.  I've been toying around with ideas for working around this by animating an image map to only create trees that may be visible to the camera. The mask would consist of a circle around the camera to allow for trees located out of view but with branches extending into the frame, and a wedge extending into the distance with a fov slightly greater than the camera lens. Everything outside of this would then be subtracted from each population's density shader.

This should allow for populations covering greater areas, with greater densities.

Oshyan

Ben, I've thought of doing the same thing as you describe and have done some very basic tests successfully. Let us know if you do attempt that and how well it works, especially with the potential issues of branches extending into frame, as you describe.

- Oshyan

bigben

March 14, 2007, 11:06:29 pm #14 Last Edit: March 14, 2007, 11:47:14 pm by bigben
I'll let you know how I go.  I tossed around a few ideas for the shape of a mask, primarily for use with animations. The mask will probably require two images. A circular mask for the area surrounding the camera and a wedge shaped image for the camera's fov. Separating the two allows the second to be scaled by a variable amount depending on how far you want to load objects away from the camera. 

There are some projection issues that may crop up which may adversely affect the coverage of the mask. It may be necessary to define a projection camera for the wedge-shaped mask directly above the render camera, looking straight down in order to maintain the correct angle at different render camera altitudes.... we shall see.

<edit> Actually, I practically answered my own question there....
Mask 1: white image map, projected through a second camera with the same position and orientation as render camera, but with a slightly larger fov.  This will catch all distant objects just out of frame.... much simpler ;)

Mask 2: white circle, plan Y projection, at render camera location. This will catch nearby objects out of frame. The exact size required remains to be seen, but keeping it as small as possible will reduce the number of unseen objects that need to be created.
</edit>