Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> Don't look like a squirrel from close, but good enough from a distance.

Scrat! Well, it totally looks like _A_ squirrel from up close.

:D

https://i.etsystatic.com/10700185/d/il/e6f0e9/818267787/il_680x540.818267787_1fq1.jpg

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
> > Don't look like a squirrel from close, but good enough from a distance.
>
> Scrat! Well, it totally looks like _A_ squirrel from up close.
>
> :D
>
>
https://i.etsystatic.com/10700185/d/il/e6f0e9/818267787/il_680x540.818267787_1fq1.jpg


Lol!

of course you can buy "real" squirrels at DAZ3d - but I can imagine my machine
screaming...
(https://www.daz3d.com/rodents-by-am-squirrels-of-eastern-hemisphere)

My rule of thumb is simple - if a part render with 16000*9000 pixels resolution
looks good, it is ok.


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't look like a squirrel from close, but good enough from a distance.
>>
>> Scrat! Well, it totally looks like _A_ squirrel from up close.
>>
>> :D
>>
>>
https://i.etsystatic.com/10700185/d/il/e6f0e9/818267787/il_680x540.818267787_1fq1.jpg
> 
> 
> Lol!
> 
> of course you can buy "real" squirrels at DAZ3d - but I can imagine my machine
> screaming...
> (https://www.daz3d.com/rodents-by-am-squirrels-of-eastern-hemisphere)
> 
> My rule of thumb is simple - if a part render with 16000*9000 pixels resolutiona v
> looks good, it is ok.
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 

In a 16000*9000 render, if a model cover less than 100 pixel in any 
direction, then, you can use a very simplified one as you won't be able 
to distinguish much detail anyway.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 2020-04-23 1:44 PM (-4), Norbert Kern wrote:
> In fact texturing was really simple. A finish like "specular 0.3 roughness 0.003
> diffuse 0.6 ambient 0" worked with nearly all objects. When I used assumed_gamma
> 2.2 there was much more work to do :-)
> 
> The biggest change was to reduce the radiosity contribution of the sky.
> Here I used rather extreme settings (at least for me) -
> 
> #version 3.7;
> 

With #version 3.7; all ambients are forced to 0 anyway.

Post a reply to this message

> On 2020-04-23 1:44 PM (-4), Norbert Kern wrote:
>> In fact texturing was really simple. A finish like "specular 0.3 
>> roughness 0.003
>> diffuse 0.6 ambient 0" worked with nearly all objects. When I used 
>> assumed_gamma
>> 2.2 there was much more work to do :-)
>>
>> The biggest change was to reduce the radiosity contribution of the sky.
>> Here I used rather extreme settings (at least for me) -
>>
>> #version 3.7;
>>
> 
> With #version 3.7; all ambients are forced to 0 anyway.

With version 3.8, the ambient for the default texture is zero.

With version 3.7, ambient is forced to zero only when radiosity is used.

In both cases, textures from inc files are still having non-zero ambient 
values, starting with the metal textures that have insane values.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2020-04-23 1:44 PM (-4), Norbert Kern wrote:
> > In fact texturing was really simple. A finish like "specular 0.3 roughness 0.003
> > diffuse 0.6 ambient 0" worked with nearly all objects. When I used assumed_gamma
> > 2.2 there was much more work to do :-)
> >
> > The biggest change was to reduce the radiosity contribution of the sky.
> > Here I used rather extreme settings (at least for me) -
> >
> > #version 3.7;
> >
>
> With #version 3.7; all ambients are forced to 0 anyway.

I meant when radiosity is used, of course.

Post a reply to this message

Just found myself staring at this image completely speechless, my eyes wide and
mouth slightly open while completely losing the track of time. :D Holy diddly
this is incredible indeed! \o/

Post a reply to this message

"Pekka Aho" <pek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Just found myself staring at this image completely speechless, my eyes wide and
> mouth slightly open while completely losing the track of time. :D Holy diddly
> this is incredible indeed! \o/


This is what the image is meant for. It is a relaxed snap-shot and doesn't tell
a story. Thus there is no dirt, death, force ...

In a technical sense I wanted to avoid typical 3D mistakes like visible
instancing, smooth shadow borders or lack of variety. And of course I relied on
strong colors and much light and shadows...

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> This idyllic (non-realistic) scene is the result of several months of work. It
> took that long because of an experiment.
>
> I was curious about what would happen when only looking long enough at each
> parts of the scene and so detecting not so good parts.
> In fact I detected one flaw after another for three long months.
> So I substituted, changed or retextured nearly all objects, some of them several
> times.
>
> In the end the scene used 155 individual objects - by comparison my recent redo
> of "warm_up" only used 21 meshes.
> So the scene contains 31 animals (9 birds, 7 mammals, 11 insects, 3 frogs and 2
> fishes).
> Since some of them are nearly invisible, I downloaded a 8000*4500 pixel version
> (
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.5ea0897b523527c5afdd13e10%40news.povray.org%3E/
> ).
>
> Rendering this version took more than 9 days and 43 GB of RAM were used.
>
> I worked several weeks on an atmosphere alone, but in the end all I did was
> adding a subtle fog effect.
>
> The chief motiv of the image is the contrast of light and shadows as it is
> important in impressionistic painting or gothic architecture.
> I'll explore this topic in my next images more.
>
> Beside this philosophical reasons it was important for me in a more technical
> sense as it is the first image since 15 years developed with assumed_gamma 1.
> I think, I'll stay at this since it is obviously possible to realize strong
> contrasts with assumed_gamma 1...
>
>
> Happy rendering in difficult times,
> Norbert

Perfect ! *****  The forward persepective is magnetic...  Would it be imaginable
to render a very slow and short animation of just a camera travelling forward ?
would the noise generator and various tricks used get freaky ? I think the lack
of animated animals or wind in the leaves would not necessarily ruin the effect
(think of it like a 19th century Matrix Bullettime :-) )

Post a reply to this message

"Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:

> Perfect ! *****  The forward persepective is magnetic...  Would it be imaginable
> to render a very slow and short animation of just a camera travelling forward ?
> would the noise generator and various tricks used get freaky ? I think the lack
> of animated animals or wind in the leaves would not necessarily ruin the effect
> (think of it like a 19th century Matrix Bullettime :-) )


Technically it would be possible.
The scene is organized in instanced tiles (mirrored and translated to the sides
and of course several times in camera direction.
No tricks were involved in planting like leaving out invisible parts. So you can
walk through the "world" (here is a low quality look at the first tile).

Of course nearly all of the "special" or otherwise invisible objects are put at
this tile separately, but this would give you freedom to place different things
as you move on, at least in theory.

What would kill the animation is radiosity.
I used mid quality settings (pretrace_start 0.08, pretrace_end 0.005, count 240,
nearest_count 8, error_bound 0.375, recursion_limit 1). Render time was directly
related to radiosity settings in this scene.
These settings would generate many defects invisible in a single image. At least
I've experienced this in other cases.

So you would have to crank up radiosity settings and thereby accept parse times
of minimum 60 minutes per frame.

Currently I'm done with this scene, but if you want, I can download the whole
unsorted folder (ca. 19 GB) - if you can provide a place to download (and my
email adress doesn't exist anymore) ;-)

Regards
Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'light & shadows_instance1.jpg' (647 KB)

Preview of image 'light & shadows_instance1.jpg'