Some more progress again. Three different views.

Inside: the tabletops still need an adequate texture. And waiting for 
customers :-)

Outside: the "pubsign" is an object found a long time ago on the web, 
and textured using Sam's NestProx macro. Thanks Sam!

Viewed real close, the arched passage strongly needs a displacement map. 
The image map is too artificial in this case.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_10a.jpg' (426 KB) Download 'at the jackal_10b.jpg' (503 KB) Download 'at the jackal_10c.jpg' (383 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10a.jpg'

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10b.jpg'

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10c.jpg'

On 11-12-2011 10:42, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Viewed real close, the arched passage strongly needs a displacement map.
> The image map is too artificial in this case.

A displacement map has been applied here, using the displacement feature 
in Poseray.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_10c.jpg' (375 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10c.jpg'

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Viewed real close, the arched passage strongly needs a displacement map. 
> The image map is too artificial in this case.

although it looks to me like the main problem here is lack of
image map resolution for the closeup view.

Also, have you tried using a bump_map? Or more caring inhabitants
that actually repair their walls now and then? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.12.2011 10:42, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Some more progress again. Three different views.
>
Beautiful scenes and delicious choice of colors. I really love it and 
especially your attempt to create a whole little world and not just one 
shot.

Thats it for the compliments and now the usual nitpicking:

Others have already mentioned it and I too find the moire pattern that 
is produced by the floor tiles within the 'Jackal' most distracting.
Slightly blurring the image map or in case this are Jaime's tiles 
modifying the color map to have a small transition between different 
colors might help. In my experience even insane AA or FB setting do 
sometimes not produce the desired smoothness so if anything else fails 
rendering the image with higher resolution and moderate AA/FB and 
finally down-sampling it should always do it without much of a speed 
penalty.
Also polished stones or ceramic tiles are actually quite reflective when 
viewed at shallow angles and therefor need fresnel falloff for the 
reflection with a quite high IOR (1.5 and above). It is hard to predict 
in this case but as the moire gets also stronger with shallow angels it 
might also help with this unwanted patterns.

The next thing that bothers me is the texture of the stone arch in the 
background. And I'm *not* talking about the 3rd picture where we are 
standing below that arch and this issue is even more dominant.
The texture seems to be an image map that already has highlights and 
shadows. And these do not match the real lighting condition. Actually 
very close but it does not *really* fit.
To me this cries out loud CGI and I always find it distracting when 
someone starts yelling at me.
Editing the used image with some clever filtering usually does the trick.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 11-12-2011 23:04, Ive wrote:
> Beautiful scenes and delicious choice of colors. I really love it and
> especially your attempt to create a whole little world and not just one
> shot.

Thanks Ive.

>
> Thats it for the compliments and now the usual nitpicking:

OK, I was expecting that, and glad to get a few punches ;-)
[jumps into karate mode]

>
> Others have already mentioned it and I too find the moire pattern that
> is produced by the floor tiles within the 'Jackal' most distracting.
> Slightly blurring the image map or in case this are Jaime's tiles
> modifying the color map to have a small transition between different
> colors might help. In my experience even insane AA or FB setting do
> sometimes not produce the desired smoothness so if anything else fails
> rendering the image with higher resolution and moderate AA/FB and
> finally down-sampling it should always do it without much of a speed
> penalty.

Yes, this has been a concern to me too, to the point where I am thinking 
about a different decoration. I have first to investigate your 
suggestions though.

> Also polished stones or ceramic tiles are actually quite reflective when
> viewed at shallow angles and therefor need fresnel falloff for the
> reflection with a quite high IOR (1.5 and above). It is hard to predict
> in this case but as the moire gets also stronger with shallow angels it
> might also help with this unwanted patterns.

These tiles already have fresnel and ior 1.5, so...

>
> The next thing that bothers me is the texture of the stone arch in the
> background. And I'm *not* talking about the 3rd picture where we are
> standing below that arch and this issue is even more dominant.
> The texture seems to be an image map that already has highlights and
> shadows. And these do not match the real lighting condition. Actually
> very close but it does not *really* fit.
> To me this cries out loud CGI and I always find it distracting when
> someone starts yelling at me.
> Editing the used image with some clever filtering usually does the trick.

Yeah... I know, I know. Has been mostly laziness up till now, but that 
image map sucks because of those shadows. I have not been really happy 
with that from the start but kept it for later worries. A lame excuse, I 
know, but there you have it. I definitely need to overhaul the whole 
concept there. Thanks for the kick in the arse ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-12-2011 22:09, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> although it looks to me like the main problem here is lack of
> image map resolution for the closeup view.
>
> Also, have you tried using a bump_map? Or more caring inhabitants
> that actually repair their walls now and then? ;)

No use to ask the inhabitants. They just don't care I am told.

The problem needs a bit of serious work and Ive's comments complete 
yours. No possibility any more to evade my responsibilities... ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I believe I have improved a number of things.

1) I subdued the tile colours and the moiré effect is mostly gone now.

2) I processed the stone image map in the Gimp, and added a second layer 
in POV.

ToDo: a better street surface.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_10a.jpg' (410 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10a.jpg'

Am 12.12.2011 14:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> I believe I have improved a number of things.
>
> 1) I subdued the tile colours and the moiré effect is mostly gone now.

Especially given that this render uses poor AA.

And for the reflection, hmm, I might be mistaken, but I would expect it 
to look different, especially where I think the sky or one of the 
opposite white walls from the houses are reflected. My starting point 
for ceramic floor tiles would be something like reflection {0 0.8 
fresnel on metallic 0.1} (ideally it would be {0 1 fresnel on ... the 
0.8 is only to assume a layer of dust/dirt).

> 2) I processed the stone image map in the Gimp, and added a second layer
> in POV.

The stone texture itself does now fit nicely, but I liked it better 
without the plaster as this broken plaster element is already widely 
used within the scene.

> ToDo: a better street surface.

;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 12-12-2011 22:43, Ive wrote:
> Am 12.12.2011 14:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> 1) I subdued the tile colours and the moiré effect is mostly gone now.
>
> Especially given that this render uses poor AA.

Why? Not that poor, though.

>
> And for the reflection, hmm, I might be mistaken, but I would expect it
> to look different, especially where I think the sky or one of the
> opposite white walls from the houses are reflected. My starting point
> for ceramic floor tiles would be something like reflection {0 0.8
> fresnel on metallic 0.1} (ideally it would be {0 1 fresnel on ... the
> 0.8 is only to assume a layer of dust/dirt).

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.... ;-)

> The stone texture itself does now fit nicely, but I liked it better
> without the plaster as this broken plaster element is already widely
> used within the scene.

I agree. See image.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal.jpg' (418 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal.jpg'

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.


>>
>> And for the reflection, hmm, I might be mistaken, but I would expect it
>> to look different, especially where I think the sky or one of the
>> opposite white walls from the houses are reflected. My starting point
>> for ceramic floor tiles would be something like reflection {0 0.8
>> fresnel on metallic 0.1} (ideally it would be {0 1 fresnel on ... the
>> 0.8 is only to assume a layer of dust/dirt).
>
> 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.

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.

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.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'at the jackal_10a_detail.png' (19 KB)

Preview of image 'at the jackal_10a_detail.png'

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

On 20-12-2011 14:28, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yes, I don't like fill lights either; better to brighten the radiosity or add a
> more plausible light source into the scene.

Yes indeed. There are still a few options I want to investigate.

>
>> About time: retirement age has also its advantages ;-)
>
> Aha! I have a while to wait for that. :)

In fact, that is good too. The period before the transition is the most 
difficult is my experience. People around you are going faster and/or 
you are going slower ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.12.2011 13:11, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

> 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.

Hint: For realism, fiddling wit the fade distance is discouraged - keep 
it set to approximately the light source size. To increase luminosity, 
simply tweak the brightness instead.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.12.2011 11:23, schrieb Bill Pragnell:
> 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.

Absolutely. Good job, Tom! The beard works good in this shot, too.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2011 5:01, clipka wrote:
>
> Hint: For realism, fiddling wit the fade distance is discouraged - keep
> it set to approximately the light source size. To increase luminosity,
> simply tweak the brightness instead.

Yes. As soon as I wrote that, I realized this. I have to be careful 
about the fade distance because I have misused it in the past ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2011 5:02, clipka wrote:
>
> Absolutely. Good job, Tom! The beard works good in this shot, too.

Thanks, Christoph, and yes the beard looks rather well in this subdued 
lighting. I think the main problem in daylight resides in a correct and 
life-like texture. That still needs a lot of experimentation.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message