A quick critique from me... the floor(according to my eyes hehe) is a bit too tiled, plus the sky in the first one is pretty much the only two things I see keeping it from truely being an actual picture. Perhaps a rug?
Good job! But 10 WHOLE HOURS?! Wow... what kind of render did you do?
The floor is too tiled for my liking as well, but the guy who I've done this for hasn't said anything about it, so I can't really change it at this point. I agree with the funky exterior image. The render took so long because it wasn't optimized, I'm going to play with it some more tonight.
Wow... I mean... Just... Wow... If you hasn't said anythin about renders, I probably would have thought they were actual pictures. Since the floor and sky were pointed out, I see how they don't quite work right, but that's still absolutely amazing.
Wow... I mean... Just... Wow... If you hasn't said anythin about renders, I probably would have thought they were actual pictures. Since the floor and sky were pointed out, I see how they don't quite work right, but that's still absolutely amazing.
Hell yeah it's nice, my jealousy is compelling me to hurry up my current project to show off as well
I had one commercial that projected a 40+ day render. It was safe to say we thought of another way to skin the cat.
0
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited June 2004
The only way I know to get the sky and ground right is to render a large area in background for that, then open panes to the background, probably make the window panes transparent to background layer with sky and ground render. for at least the widnow region for a wall of windows, you build a background render at least as big as the possible windows' combined areas and it becomes the "common outside" that the virtual space of inside looks out onto. That is gonna eat render time, easier to take a spearate render, and transfer file parts in as graphics to fill window at high res. Not perfect from window to window, decent though unless you are doing a whole virtual space. If you ware doign a whole virtual space where point of view can approach close to windows, you need a base "outside layer" to get better than you have, which is superb now.
One little question, what display will show the higher res you say you need to use for some reason (or are you talking SIZE in pixels)??? If not such a device possible, and you are not PRINTING, that exercise is a null-value-gained exercise. Now, a 2667x2000 graphics size in pixels overall is possible, but I would say a density like that would be a 10X-20X overkill if per inch unless you really are needing poster sized or bigger output of photo quality.... I DO print photos at close to that density here in reality.... But normally 1200X1200 to 1400x1400 density output scaling is normal print grade for photos of very good quality. I print at 2288X (as close to the Digicam's native other res), 1712, as I can get. Comes out to 2880X1440 approximate for second dimension of density in actual printing yeild.
Yeah, when you get in to animations and stuff, pray to God your program has one of the following.
Irradiance map
Photon map
Quasi-Monte Carlo
And know how to use them, or you're screwed.
I wish there was a local firm I could get a job at, sadly there are none, my income can be rather sporradic.
John, I'm not printing these, there is a seperate company who handles that, they just tell me what size they need and I send it to them. They do anything from billboard size prints to banners, so I have no clue what they're doing really.
0
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
that's amazing. it looks absolutely real at first glance.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited June 2004
Very good work! I especially like the excellent lighting job you've done in the first pick. To me, that first graphic looks like a very nice loft office, overlooking a valley. Again, very good work.
I'll throw in my 2 pieces of constructive criticism:
Pic 1 - the air duct pipes look too shiny, almost like they are made out of chrome. Unless that is what the client is going for, I would recommend dulling the reflectivity of that surface to get a more realistic look.
Pic 2 - the criss-crossing shadows from the window panes are too sharp. They look almost painted on to the couch & table. This tells me that the light you have behind the window is too bright / too close to the window. I would dull that light, and add another room light from the same angle but inside the window, so as to achieve the same light level but with a less harsh shadow, or find a way to soften / blur those shadows a little bit.
Dexter, I have the irradiance map saved, so the amount of 'local' light in the scene can stay the same, I think I'm going to knock down the brightness, and add a bit of blur to the edges of the shadows. At first, I thought the duct work was to be a galvanized material as well, but in their showroom downtown Royal Oak it's a lot shinier than I expected.
Um, in the second pic, just under and ahead of the table, why is there no shadow there? Is it supposed to be made of glass or something? Only thing that kinda confused me...otherwise looks excellent.
Nomad
A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
Comments
/me thinks of paying projects that he can shift your way.
i would love to learn how to do that one day.
what app(s) did u use?
Do it, I always need more work
I used 3DSMAX for this.
Good job! But 10 WHOLE HOURS?! Wow... what kind of render did you do?
Hell yeah it's nice, my jealousy is compelling me to hurry up my current project to show off as well
I wish I were ever capable of working the program! I have almost NO artistic skills anyway, so I stay away from them.
BAh...10 hours is kidstuff. But once you turn on rays and go for that life like lighting...
slllllllllooooooooowwwwwwwwllllllllyyyyyy ttttttttthhhhhhhhheeeeeee coooommmmmmppppputttttterrrrrr gooooooooesss.
I had one commercial that projected a 40+ day render. It was safe to say we thought of another way to skin the cat.
One little question, what display will show the higher res you say you need to use for some reason (or are you talking SIZE in pixels)??? If not such a device possible, and you are not PRINTING, that exercise is a null-value-gained exercise. Now, a 2667x2000 graphics size in pixels overall is possible, but I would say a density like that would be a 10X-20X overkill if per inch unless you really are needing poster sized or bigger output of photo quality.... I DO print photos at close to that density here in reality.... But normally 1200X1200 to 1400x1400 density output scaling is normal print grade for photos of very good quality. I print at 2288X (as close to the Digicam's native other res), 1712, as I can get. Comes out to 2880X1440 approximate for second dimension of density in actual printing yeild.
Irradiance map
Photon map
Quasi-Monte Carlo
And know how to use them, or you're screwed.
I wish there was a local firm I could get a job at, sadly there are none, my income can be rather sporradic.
John, I'm not printing these, there is a seperate company who handles that, they just tell me what size they need and I send it to them. They do anything from billboard size prints to banners, so I have no clue what they're doing really.
I DID one week run on a render one time.... Hmmm... It was not bad, no longer have the output file or program, though.
I'll throw in my 2 pieces of constructive criticism:
Pic 1 - the air duct pipes look too shiny, almost like they are made out of chrome. Unless that is what the client is going for, I would recommend dulling the reflectivity of that surface to get a more realistic look.
Pic 2 - the criss-crossing shadows from the window panes are too sharp. They look almost painted on to the couch & table. This tells me that the light you have behind the window is too bright / too close to the window. I would dull that light, and add another room light from the same angle but inside the window, so as to achieve the same light level but with a less harsh shadow, or find a way to soften / blur those shadows a little bit.
Dexter...
Thanks for the suggestions, all.