Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Open Discussion / Re: Clouds Following Terrain ...
« Last post by zaxxon on May 26, 2017, 05:26:36 PM »
I've had some wonderful moments in Reno as well looking at the high desert as the weather comes across the eastern slope of the Sierra's. Thanks for the beautiful shots, even with the wires and whatnots.
22
Terragen Discussion / Re: Bucket Size
« Last post by Matt on May 26, 2017, 05:26:12 PM »
But as Oshyan says, generally the defaults are usually fairly optimal. It automatically adjusts to resolution, thread count and AA. Only change the defaults if you are prepared to run tests to verify render times in each scene, and don't save the changes into your default project.

Matt
23
Image Sharing / Re: Mission to Mars
« Last post by zaxxon on May 26, 2017, 05:22:36 PM »
This is such an excellent display of your ability and TG's facility to render the Martian landscape. Truly an enjoyable series!
24
Terragen Discussion / Re: Bucket Size
« Last post by Matt on May 26, 2017, 05:20:10 PM »
There are some circumstances where I might change the defaults, but they are rare. If there is a very slow-to-render portion of the image and it's a small area compared to the rest of the image, sometimes reducing the bucket size can help. In extreme cases I have gone as low as 50x50. But it is quite rare to need to do this. On most scenes this would make the render slower.

Bear in mind that the number you enter is not the actual bucket size. When "allow auto reduction" is enabled it's just a maximum. It's forcing Terragen to always make sure the buckets are never larger than that number. The default is 256x256, but the renderer usually produces smaller buckets than that, especially with high-thread renders. Therefore if you change it to 128x128 it might operate the same as 256x256, but it depends on number of threads, resolution and AA.

Matt
25
Terragen Discussion / Re: Photography Techniques Can DeNoise Noisy Renders
« Last post by Matt on May 26, 2017, 05:00:20 PM »
The premise is that the noise in each picture is different. Is this indeed true with Terragen?

Yes, for the kinds of noise we hate most in Terragen renders - atmosphere noise, cloud noise, soft shadow noise and even GI flickering. To a large extent it can also help with anti-aliasing vegetation.

Matt
26
Terragen Discussion / Re: Photography Techniques Can DeNoise Noisy Renders
« Last post by Matt on May 26, 2017, 04:56:05 PM »
I feel that the video is quite misleading. Denoising in post is a good strategy and good advice, and that part of the video is useful. It's the stacking that I have a problem with. Stacking images like this using the 'mean' mode is not much different from what C4D's physical renderer does when you allow it to render for longer. He compares a stack of 15 images (total render time 12m51s) with a C4D render that took 30m32s. The 30 minute render is clearly much better. But he does not show what a 13 minute C4D render would look like. I suspect it would be similar in quality to the stacked version, or perhaps even better, considering how good the 30 minute render is. The 30 minute render is significantly better than the 13 minute stacked version. It's quite surprising actually, so I think C4D is doing something even more clever.

He suggests using a Denoise filter on the stacked version to clean up the remaining noise. It ends up about as smooth as the 30 minute render, of course. But my question would be "why not render a 12 minute render in C4D and then denoise that instead? Would the result be better or worse?"

In most of the examples he showed, the stacked version was noisier (before applying the Denoise filter). So where's the gain? But he didn't show examples of stacking at the same total render time as the native render, so we can't be sure.

It's the renderer's job to produce the lowest noise render in the time it's given, and if stacking were more efficient then the renderer would work like that already.

I'm being a bit harsh. There are some cases where stacking can reduce certain types of noise better than the renderer would do natively, such as very bright regions that contain super-bright pixels. The reason is that they can be clamped to low dynamic range before stacking, which helps a little bit.

Modes other than 'mean', e.g. 'median', might sometimes be a better choice for stacking, and that's where perhaps stacking in the image editor could work out smoother than the renderer's native output.

Matt
27
Image Sharing / Re: Mission to Mars
« Last post by René on May 26, 2017, 04:20:30 PM »
Mars vehicle. w.i.p.

The vehicle is from NASA: https://nasa3d.arc.nasa.gov/detail/nmss-sev
28
Terragen Discussion / Re: ShaderArray
« Last post by Dune on May 26, 2017, 03:22:59 PM »
You can easily check, can't you? I think that would work.
29
Terragen Animation / Re: More babies -- the new teaser
« Last post by Dune on May 26, 2017, 03:21:55 PM »
I've gotten used to the babychatter, and I must say; you are putting together a very crafty (and detailed) piece of art! Your attention to the special effects and detail is indeed incredible.
30
Terragen Animation / Re: More babies -- the new teaser
« Last post by Hannes on May 26, 2017, 03:19:39 PM »
Incredible! I like the tons of detail you took care of. And I like the baby voices!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10