Next project is a Roman settlement near a tidal creek at low tide. This is a very early test, in need of lots of work!
The creek itself already looks convincingly muddy.
The creek looks good. I like the coloring also; fall or early spring.
First update from today's work.
Great improvements, the house doesn't look like it's been washed away now :)
QuoteI like the coloring also; fall or early spring.
Exactly what it's supposed to be. But I still have to change the leaf colors.
Trouble with the mud. Not too bad, but I did some tests to get the best mud, and it seems that a reflective shader with RT reflections ON is the best, though the slowest. You get the trees to cast their sheen on the mud, which is missing in the default shader way. And the 'double' reflectivity of mud and the remaining trickle of water (water shader) interacts, which gives these whitish areas that look like foam, but are not supposed to be there.
I think the best way to speed up render is to crop the mud part and set RT on, and do the rest without reflections at all.
Hi,
i had some success removing unwanted effects,working with 2 reflective shaders,
by setting the highlight intensity of one of them to zero (which was not the same
as switching it off btw).Don't know if this will help here,but might be worth
trying.
Gorgeous!! I'd prefer something between image 4 and 5. That unwanted fake foam looks great. When there is too much reflection the water looks kind of frozen.
Thanks j meyer, I'll try some more of that.
After my little mud test, I did some more, also to get a feeling of the best bumps and cracks. This is using two reflective shaders, like j meyer said, and it seems to work well. The rest is just quickly added to give it some 'smoel'. Didn't want to keep it for myself. Only now I see that the displacement on the foam should me inversed....
excellent!
looks very muddy. Very. Muddy. So great job, I guess ;-)
Very convincing.
I like what you've done here with the muddy shore line.
More mud. I wanted to get a more smooth 'gradient' from water to mud, and some remaining foam in puddles. The mud is a bit too warped still, and the (hastily made) poles too rough, but alas. My main problem is now to get the foam to rise more (in the center) like thick foam, but that seems hard without getting harsh edges. I'll keep on tweaking.
I don't think those poles are too rough - they look perfect to me. The mud looks ok; but maybe less ripples and a teeny bit of displacement. This is looking very good.
The poles look very good to me. The roughness will probably look great when you go for the final render.
Another update on the Creek Settlement. Made a wheelbarrow, changed some stuff. But there was a strange ending to this render. It was officially finished, but one area didn't finish all the way.
Nice as always Dune :)
Is there a missing polygon on the left lower part of the big house?
Fantastic! I love the details!!
QuoteIs there a missing polygon on the left lower part of the big house?
That's a shadow.
A wonderfully detailed scene, I especially like the wee bridge over the stream. I thought at first the water of the stream and puddles was too blue, but that's nothing more than a personal preference.
A crop render of the unfinished bit of the initial render will probably sort that, but I hear what you're saying, a render anomaly.
John
That's looking really nice, again, Ulco :)
I've got to ask. How do you create your paths? Are those masks? They look so natural. Nobody does it like you 8)
"Nobody does it like you"
Yes, Ulco really raises the standard here. Great looking so far!
loving the paths also, as always it is (all of) the detailing that makes these special!
I paint the masks in Photoshop, simple as that. Just use the proper tools.
I am also wondering what would take less memory; an internal painted shader 'map' or a small grayscale TIFF loaded into an image map shader.... anyone?
I think your image maps are more accurate. I would think it is important for your work. Maybe for the veggies...
I'm not sure what would be the least expensive to render, I'd say...check it out!
But I agree with Henry. The hand-painted masks are much more accurate and offer more freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if it is much faster to create as well.
The painted shader isn't very accurate at all. Just generate a terrain close-up, paint something and then re-paint and you'll see that there will be some spill-over which you orginally did not paint.
You're both absolutely right. I don't have time to check this out, so I'll stick with the PS masks. Anyway, they (the veggie ones, indeed) can be reduced significantly from my base and still keep their accuracy. The only thing was that it's fairly easy to paint in some missing area for another few trees to pop up, instead of opening PS again, etc..
Cooked up some chickens, but I think I need to roughen the grassy river dune. It's too 'mowed' for a Roman environment. Any more suggestions?
yes, one more. The front wall of the building has almost the same color as the dusty ground around the house.
Now, until now I didn't even realize there was a wall - instead it seemed to me the building had no wall, just the roof, and I've mistaken the wall for the same dusty ground that's everywhere around the house.
Not sure if I explained this in a way so that anyone else besides me can understand what I mean :D
Just shout if it doesn't make sense and I'll try again :)
Cheers,
FRank
Great work Dune. It sure takes awhile to get something just right. Most of the time I just give up.
I can't give up, I'm really tenacious (if that's the right word). I want it perfect (within my abilities), and it is a commission, so it should be good.
And Frank, you're right, but these guys made their homes from the dirt they live on. But I might change it slightly, or give the bottom part a more grubby color (by distribution shader+PF). Or grow some weed/grass at the wall base. They probably weren't 'perfect gardeners', these Roman farmers.
Quote from: Dune on August 08, 2010, 03:04:19 AM
I can't give up, I'm really tenacious (if that's the right word). I want it perfect (within my abilities), and it is a commission, so it should be good.
And Frank, you're right, but these guys made their homes from the dirt they live on. But I might change it slightly, or give the bottom part a more grubby color (by distribution shader+PF). Or grow some weed/grass at the wall base. They probably weren't 'perfect gardeners', these Roman farmers.
If they make it from the dirt they live on, then I'd tend to say the colour should be lighter compared to the dirt/soil because it will dry out.
That's funny, I was thinking exactly the same as I logged off.
My commission finalized. Only the people and the white egrets I painted in, as well some smoke from the chimney, and some minor 'repairs'. Rendered at 4500x2250 (9 hours at 0.5 and AA4, GI2/2/8, soft shadows 1 @ 5 samples) it is very nice, which I can't show, unfortunately.
So nice ! Sometimes i think we could make comments without fear that this place would look like Renderosity or so ;D
Wow !
Thanks for showing this - great scene. Interesting that you could get away with such a low detail setting in the final render - but I guess when you do such a large render, you start picking up the finer details anyway.
Will there be somewhere where we can see the whole image? Great work.
If you want to enhance realism you may want to model two holding areas for the Rams. Normally folks that raise sheep separate the Rams from the Ewes until they are in heat plus keep the Rams separate or they will try to kill each other. You may want to add a Border Collie or a Lama to watch over the Ewes. Lamas are used to protect the Sheep from predators. Lamas get very aggressive when wolves or Coyotes are present.
Lamas? They may have had some people from Tibet; lamas are from South America. They might be good with sheep, but the time period for this they would not have been known about.
True however, I did mention adding a Border Collie. Many of the wealthier Sheep breeders did import Lamas. Certainly a Collie would be more appropriate for this scene.
I wonder if collies had been breed at this time. They probably had something similar.
Considered the world's best sheepherder, Border Collies originated on the Scottish/English border in Northumberland, derived from a mixture of Spaniel and early droving breeds. While no one knows for sure how long they've been around, some experts say English sheepdogs have been tending herds since the Romans landed in Britain. Their keen intelligence and adaptability has made them a top choice for narcotics and bomb detection, not to mention guiding the blind and assisting the handicapped. (DogSter)
I've never seen a border collie working as either a drug/bomb sniffer or a guide dog. Having owned them and know several people who do own them they are far too prone to psychotic episodes brought about by inbreeding, as there is a relatively small gene pool.
Springer spaniels on the other hand make excellent drug/bomb sniffers and are slowly being phased into other working roles such as helper dogs for the disabled, unfortunately they tend to be too small for guide dogs.
I currently own a Springer and a Golden Retreiver who is not as thick as she likes you to believe.
" a Golden Retreiver who is not as thick as she likes you to believe" lol
We should get back to the Settlement. I don't want to feel I hijacked the thread. :P
Yeah, this seems like the poodle club ;) But anyway, I haven't got a dog (object) yet, and the people who wanted this didn't mention it, but you posed some interesting ideas.
Amazing details as usual. Just curious about one thing... Have you tried rendering it (for yourself, not the commission) at smaller resolution (1600 or 1920) at a higher detail level - say around .9 or 1 with higher AA? I am very curious whether it would look much different or not.
Quote from: RArcher on August 16, 2010, 10:49:54 AM
Amazing details as usual. Just curious about one thing... Have you tried rendering it (for yourself, not the commission) at smaller resolution (1600 or 1920) at a higher detail level - say around .9 or 1 with higher AA? I am very curious whether it would look much different or not.
I remember I asked you this some times before, so now Ryan mentions it again and therefore I'd like to try to encourage you again :)
Recently I use almost the same settings for every work, which is: detail 0.85 and AA6 non-adaptive. This AA setting gives nearly the exact same result as AA8 but is quite faster.
Detail >0.85 results often in subpixel details which are barely visible.
The only reason to use higher detail levels for me is often the GI settings which are, unfortunately, linked with the detail slider.
Of course you know this stuff, but thought I say it for everyone who cares :)
That's an interesting thought, Ryan. I might try that. The deal with the commission was to deliver appr. A3 at 300 dpi. Too large to do at such high detail.
I'm rendering a zoom-in detail of the creek end at this time, with an added hollow tree as Roman drainage pipe. Had to change some pops, but deleted everything out of sight, and now do the mud with RayTraced reflections on. It will be much nicer...
Hi Martin, yeah I know, I'm stubborn, aren't I? I always have to find a way to make the renders nice enough for the client, and not have to render for days. They are satisfied with this detail level, but I'm certainly aware that it might enhance the whole thing greatly if using higher settings. I'll try some more, perhaps crops to test.
Once again, a stunner. I really enjoy the variety - colors, textures, objects - across the scene, which is hard to achieve. Do you actually do this for a living? Otherwise, I cannot imagine where you get the time to keep outputting so many detailed scenes.
Quote from: Dune on August 16, 2010, 12:23:04 PM
Hi Martin, yeah I know, I'm stubborn, aren't I? I always have to find a way to make the renders nice enough for the client, and not have to render for days. They are satisfied with this detail level, but I'm certainly aware that it might enhance the whole thing greatly if using higher settings. I'll try some more, perhaps crops to test.
Yes you're stubborn :P ghehe....but you have a good reason; I know your works are time-consuming to produce and therefore I understand that you have no reason/need to render things at higher detail other than required by your clients.
You'll see that an increase of detail 0.5 to 0.7 already makes quite a difference, mean-while not causing huge increases in rendertime (since you often do not use fancy displacements).
Especially increasing AA from 4 to 6 is making a big difference.
However, I must admit that you might run into other kind of detail problems: you design and optimize your scene for the final detail you're rendering with and upping settings might suddenly give rise to "artefacts" which would normally be covered/disclosed by the lower rendersettings.
You certainly have a 'look' about your work. But what really amazes me is the amount of detail and natural variation you get from your masks. Loving the mud.
Thanks for all your kind words. Indeed I do this for a living, although I spend 1000% more time in it than paid for. Just because it's addictive and so much fun. But I am able to work in TG2 most of the day, and indeed some works need all that time to put together (including making all the objects, which I only started to do a couple of months ago, so I'm not fast and efficient) and test until every bit is good enough. I know I can make the images more realistic, but there's a saying; put 50% of your time into a product that's 90% right, don't waste another 50% on only 10% better. Not always true, I know, but commercially it is.
Anyway, I will post a changed POV, rendering now at different settings. I already see that 0.85 and AA6 is quite a lot better...
The mud is a painted gray mask (1000x1000px) in PS, using textured brushes, with added (warped) fractals in TG2. The thing I mostly regret is that I cannot get rid of the white artifacts where reflective transparent water hits reflective mud. I can, but only if I make the water far less transparent, or use Ray traced reflections, and they are not perfect either. If time permits, I'll dive into that. Mud is great indeed.
Those reflections are a pain in... with TG2 so far :)
Same goes for clouds and atmosphere.
Reflections/specularity/glow etc. are all way too much bound to the sun's angle and position.
I'm sorry to say, but in Vue you can easily get shiny water throughout a whole image. Or shiny mud.
Good luck with achieving that in TG2. The spread and intensity doesn't work because you need a huge spread and high intensity, but that will result in the look of wrinkled paper.
It would be better if this would be coupled entirely to GI and that the user has control on the intensity of that, so that he is ablo to exaggerate or under-estimate the effect. May not be physically correct, but it would offer more freedom of creativity.
Perhaps raytracing the reflections will work, but that's very slow.
We'll see what the developments in TG2 bring. Up till now, there's been a tremendous progress in the software.
Here are 3 versions of the creek end, so you can study the differences yourselves. No post, just saved as 85% quality jpg. The first at detail 0.85 and AA 6, the second at 0.7 and 6, the third at my default 0.5 and 4. Don't look at the vegetation, it's very low-poly distant stuff, not really suitable for so close-up.
and 0.5 and 4. Too bad, just on the next page...
The only differences I noticed in the first two images was that the light plays a little differently off the objects. The water/creek area look a bit more 'real' in the third; to me anyway.
Well, there is a difference in all three, the water in the creek, I left it out in the second render.
Ah, and now that you mention it, you'll see that there's less of the whitish artifacts at the mud and water edges in the high detail render (first compared to third). That's good.
Very nice.
It must take some time to place all the objects without a wire-frame preview. This is one area, when implemented, that will be a big time saver.
Looking forward to the final when you can release it.
The first one is clearly superior, though if you only showed the third one, I would still say it's wonderful 8)
Your thinking is very rational, to get even better results you'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time to achieve it, and when it's your living you just have to draw the line somewhere especially when the client's already happy. I do think that upping the quality settings as discussed will show immediate improvement, you may just need a separate machine or two dedicated to rendering :)
I am glad one can live off Terragen work, maybe there is hope in the distant future to get out of the rat race, LOL!
Quote from: otakar on August 17, 2010, 11:32:54 AM
I do think that upping the quality settings as discussed will show immediate improvement, you may just need a separate machine or two dedicated to rendering :)
Did you compare the first two of the comparison with the last version???? It definitely shows improvement!
And I bet it didn't take that very much longer to call it "not worth it".
You're absolutely right, Martin.
@ Otakar: Luckily I do have a separate machine that can render while I work on something else. Great to see landscapes grow from the corner of ones eye, and not really having to wait.
*sigh*
Sorry, Henry. Luckily PC's are not very expensive anymore ( I started out with my very first pc at a 1000 euro in 1997, which is now a total slug of course, but prices have dropped and speeds have dramatically increased), and for a small price a decent 2nd hand can run for hours on a render quite happily.
Here's a final full (but small) render at detail 0.75 and AA6. Time to move to other things. I modeled a great white egret to give it some more interest.
What do you use for grasses, Ulco?
Thanks,
Frank
The Egret adds a nice touch. I noticed when viewing the whole scene that you have these little things, animals, people etc. which makes it fun to find all the little details. Where's Waldo?
Keep up the great work.
Don't look at the grasses (and reeds) too good here, they're very simple things; some wide areas of 2D spikes mainly, actually only suitable for more distant work. I didn't really intend to make this ;-)
I think it looks great. There is a very noticeable difference in the quality settings especially in the vegetation.
I like the drainage circled in the picture. Nice touch.
Quote from: Dune on August 18, 2010, 11:33:32 AM
Don't look at the grasses (and reeds) too good here, they're very simple things; some wide areas of 2D spikes mainly, actually only suitable for more distant work. I didn't really intend to make this ;-)
hm, what are 2D spikes? Is this an image map or actually a 3D spike? What I like about these grass spikes is that they are yellowish at the bottom and green at the top. At least that's how it seems to my eye :)
Well, 2D may not be the right description. They are flat elongated areas sticking up, not tubes. So 2D as 3D spikes :-\ And the color difference might be due to a fractal I attached to this, or the fact that there are 3 or so series of spikes in different colors.
Ah, and if you refer to the 3 or 4 long top leaves right at the front, I hastily painted these in in PS.
After 120 days I've got a short animation of this. Rendered by MastermindProductions. It's on vimeo, but the quality isn't 'to write home about'. If you're quick, you might be able to download the original file.
Link: https://vimeo.com/45247204 (https://vimeo.com/45247204)
ps. Watch the hens in the end. Although barely visible, they DO move; isn't that cute :o
So many great details. I really like the way you block out the distance with the fog/cloud.
I just want to play this again and again; amazing work Ulco!
Very nice indeed. I enjoy the slow camera move, although it does go on a bit too long at the end in my view (nice to linger and see the chickens move, but could do that in fewer seconds, hehe). The shadows are also a bit noisy. I'd have liked to see higher quality render and fewer frames (shorter). But don't let these little criticisms detract from the overall impression, which is very good. I quite like it. It's especially nice seeing the muddy areas in motion, they hold up surprisingly well.
Oh, and the sound definitely adds to it! Good choice. Just need something for the 2nd half.
- Oshyan
This video really shows the quality of your work.
Usually a good TG2 image won't hold up very well once you start moving the camera around and such, but here you can see very well that everything fits :)
Also very nice length of the clip!
Great work Ulco! :)
Love the wall of fog! Thats the part I like best, just love the way it looks.
I think this is the longest TG2 animation I have seen. Its nice because I could just sit back and relax while I viewed it.
Thanks guys. Well, for one of my first animations, I'm quite happy about it. Some things I don't like; the ugly branch in the start (I'm too close to it), some flickering in the reeds, and the slow move at the end. I really find it hard to get a nice set of control points in the terrain for the camera, I must have started over again 10 times or so. It would be so great if you could pick the red dots and move them around like an object, shift them a little. Yeah, I picked the wrong sound clip, I had another one which was longer.
That's a nice clip. You always want more dynamics like animal movement, but considering the constraints, this came out very well.