On 13-12-2011 12:41, Ive wrote:
> Am 13.12.2011 09:12, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>
>>> Especially given that this render uses poor AA.
>>
>> Why? Not that poor, though.
>>
>
> The staircases? See attachment. Even more prominent at the sunlight
> shadows from the facade beams.

Sorry, my fault. I was thinking of something else, don't ask me why. 
This is of course very average indeed.


>> 0.8?! I use 0.05 as otherwise the tiles are much too reflective for my
>> taste. 0.8 gives the tiles a mirror aspect which I certainly do not
>> want. See image with 0.8 instead of 0.05.
>> I might increase that value a bit though.... ;-)
>>
>
> Well, I said "starting point" and not that I would leave it this way ;)
>
> I just checked it out in our kitchen and the tiles *are* becoming a
> perfect mirror (slightly blurred though) and their own colors and
> ornamentation gets completely lost.

My tiles here are different ones. They are floor tiles with a mostly 
matte surface. They could even be rendered with only specular, but I 
prefer a bit of reflection.

>
> So the high reflection does not look *that* wrong to me. Major problem
> is that it makes it obvious that the floor is a perfect plane missing
> the expected irregularity in tile alignment and the missing joints/gaps.

Interestingly, the floor *is* composed of separate tiles with bevelled 
edges :-) There is however hardly a gap and the tiles are well-aligned.

>
> Anyway it is just about finding the right balance between real-world
> physics and faking it as usual within ray-tracing. Even with so called
> unbiased render engines this keeps true (or maybe even more, because
> flaws become also more obvious) as I'm currently playing around with the
> trial version of the Maxwell renderer.

Indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 12-12-2011 22:43, Ive wrote:
> Am 12.12.2011 14:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> ToDo: a better street surface.
>
> ;)
>
> -Ive
>

Phewww...! I have cobbled about 6000 stones today and am feeling tired 
;-)  but the street looks better. I had no time to sweep the dirt.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_11a.jpg' (420 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_11a.jpg'

>Thomas de Groot  on date 14/12/2011 16:38 wrote:
> On 12-12-2011 22:43, Ive wrote:
>> Am 12.12.2011 14:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> ToDo: a better street surface.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> -Ive
>>
>
> Phewww...! I have cobbled about 6000 stones today and am feeling tired
> ;-) but the street looks better. I had no time to sweep the dirt.
>
> Thomas
>
...and I'm still waitin' for that coffee!
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 15-12-2011 10:33, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> ...and I'm still waitin' for that coffee!
> ;-)

Puff...puff...puff...

it's coming, sir! Percolator broke down, sir! And we seem to be out of 
coffee at the moment, sir! Can I bring you some hot water instead?


Note: I just opened a door in the back, to backyard and kitchen, so we 
may be soon in business :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.12.2011 16:38, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Phewww...! I have cobbled about 6000 stones today and am feeling tired
> ;-) but the street looks better. I had no time to sweep the dirt.
>

I hope you have recovered from that heavy labour :)

But the better this little world gets the more minor issues become real 
problems. I'm not trying to lecture I'm more thinking loud and do target 
also myself!
As I have mentioned multiple times I do not think that this "Uncanny 
Valley" within CGI exists. I've searched for studies on this subject and 
didn't find any so it lacks evidence and was obviously just lend from a 
completely different field - robotics. Within CGI it is just used as a 
buzzword and actually says nothing. At least it does not say anything 
helpful or constructive when it is meant to criticize CGI work.
In my observation the problem when getting closer to photorealism has 
nothing to do with a "valley" but with being *consistent* close to (or 
far away from) photorealism.
And to me (sorry for bringing it up again) the floor still looks wrong. 
Or better: it looks not right compared to the state of realism the other 
textures the modeling and the lighting does represent. I think it is 
mostly this kind of inconsistence that becomes more and more a problem 
the closer the overall image gets to realism.
In case of this reflecting floor, something that does produce such 
*sharp* reflections will (viewed at shallow angels) also produce strong 
reflections. If (as you say) the surface is meant to be matte it will 
never produce sharp reflections but blurry ones.
In your case you might get away without using reflection for the floor 
at all (making it realistic look blurry will dramatical increase render 
time) and use the saved render time for more HQ radiosity. This would 
also make the beams inside look less "floating".
And in case the floor gets right other currently minor things are 
starting to stand out, this is the course of getting too close to 
perfection ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Ive, I really appreciate your comments.

Personally, I am not too concerned about these issues and, to be frank, 
I do not see the floor as a problem at all :-) This image is an 
illustration, nothing more, and I do not pretend nor want to reach, 
photorealism or anything else, certainly not perfection. That last would 
seriously hamper my creativity and productivity. While I agree that 
there needs to be some consistency within the image (like the blatant 
image maps for arch and street of which I had been aware but pushed away 
for later) I sincerely believe that other and more subtle types of 
discrepancies like the tiled floor fall within the "artist's liberty" of 
interpretation ;-) and the more so as they will all but disappear with 
the introduction of the figures inside (which will generate other types 
of problems unfortunately.

I often look at those illustrations accompanying the books of Jules 
Verne. There are numerous inconsistencies to be traced, but who cares? 
They fall within the limits (or my limits at least) and can be enjoyed 
fully nevertheless.

Still, your comments are important to determine where I draw those limits.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

With the first customers...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_12a.jpg' (421 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_12a.jpg'

Thomas de Groot <tenDOTlnDOTretniATtoorgedDOTt> wrote:
> With the first customers...

I like this latest one, it's starting to feel like a real, bustling environment!
Good posing on the customers in the foreground.

I can't help feeling, though, that maybe the interior should be a little better
lit. Perhaps a light chimney, or some form of light source (like a lamp, or
fire) off-camera... or maybe just cranking up the exterior brightness a little.

Watching with interest, wishing I had the time to devote to a project like this!
:)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2011 11:23, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I like this latest one, it's starting to feel like a real, bustling environment!
> Good posing on the customers in the foreground.
>
> I can't help feeling, though, that maybe the interior should be a little better
> lit. Perhaps a light chimney, or some form of light source (like a lamp, or
> fire) off-camera... or maybe just cranking up the exterior brightness a little.
>
> Watching with interest, wishing I had the time to devote to a project like this!
> :)
>

Thank you indeed, Bill. I agree with you about the light so, in the 
present image a fire is indeed simulated behind the camera with two 
coloured area lights, in the kitchen area. I can increase its luminosity 
of course by increasing the fade distance. The sun light is already 
quite brilliant: Blackbody(6500)*10 using CIE.inc. I try to keep as 
natural an ambience as possible without using artificial fill in lights 
and such.

About time: retirement age has also its advantages ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tenDOTlnDOTretniATtoorgedDOTt> wrote:
> I agree with you about the light so, in the
> present image a fire is indeed simulated behind the camera with two
> coloured area lights, in the kitchen area. I can increase its luminosity
> of course by increasing the fade distance. The sun light is already
> quite brilliant: Blackbody(6500)*10 using CIE.inc. I try to keep as
> natural an ambience as possible without using artificial fill in lights
> and such.

Yes, I don't like fill lights either; better to brighten the radiosity or add a
more plausible light source into the scene.

> About time: retirement age has also its advantages ;-)

Aha! I have a while to wait for that. :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message