Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Razor on April 29, 2003, 01:48:56 pm
-
It's been a long time since I posted a render here. I decided to get back into rendering buisness again and here is what I made:
Hope you like it. :)
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/upload/unk_r_2.jpg)
-
The Erinyes look great, but it needs more depth. It looks like yhe fighters are all right next to each other.
Oh, and use a different Lunarcell planet. That one stinks. Make sure you get the lighting right next time.
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
The Erinyes look great, but it needs more depth. It looks like yhe fighters are all right next to each other.
Oh, and use a different Lunarcell planet. That one stinks. Make sure you get the lighting right next time.
:nod:
-
If thats a render, then I can render without rendering...
To be honest I don't like it that much. A few pointers:
- When you create a planet in lunar cell, make sure the clouds are soft and not hard as they are now. They look like big blocks of swirling ice now.
- Relief on the planet is too high. It reaches the level the clouds are at and flattens the mountains because of that. Lunar Cell bug or something. Its not very noticable but still...
- As said before the Erinyes look good but need more depht. (Think like bored pilots who go playing a bit with their fighters on a long patrol)
- The Background.. well let me guess? bad JPG compression? Save it in PNG format. A wee bit bigger but the quality is better.
- The lightning, it seems as if the sun shines from 2 sides. try to add some shadow on one of the sides (in this pic it'd be the lower left side or the top of the planet [can't really make it out where the sun is])
I hope this helps with your future pictures. :)
-
JPEG compression ain't a problem there, far as I see. Antialiasing would be nice for the fighters, though.
-
If thats a render, then I can render without rendering...
:sigh: Bleh! Why do I even bother posting my work here? No matter how hard i try I always get a bad response anyway. Maybe I am not cut out for this job.
-
The Erinyes look awesome! Just... lose the planet, that's all. :nervous: Don't get discouraged...
-
Originally posted by Razor
:sigh: Bleh! Why do I even bother posting my work here? No matter how hard i try I always get a bad response anyway. Maybe I am not cut out for this job.
Compared to me you're a genius ;) (Ok, it doesn't take much to beat me but hey :D )
Did you texture the erinyes yourself? It looks sweet!
Cheers,
-
Its just that degrading work is away to fource you to improve it.
I have been constantly *****ed at in my current course and its help me hella lot more than my previous tutors who went around saying they loved everything :D
-
Originally posted by Razor
:sigh: Bleh! Why do I even bother posting my work here? No matter how hard i try I always get a bad response anyway. Maybe I am not cut out for this job.
You got it all wrong. I can't say its the best when I think it isn't. I say what I think. I gave comments so you can work on that when you go for your next pic. Use those!
You can't expect all your work to be good. If you'd only see my first few attemts on CG art you'd laugh your ass off. :p
-
If it's any consolation, I like it, a lot just as it is. :yes:
-
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
The Erinyes look awesome! Just... lose the planet, that's all.
:nod: :yes:
If you saved it in a file with layers (ie a .psp) - as every good renderer should - then surely it can't be hard to go back and delete the planet, replace it, and leave the rest un-touched?
Also, not sure what program you use, but paint shop pro has an optimizer for most files when you save them. If you save it as a jpeg you can choose the compression level, between 7-10 is fine, the default is 14.
-
did a great job on the Erinyes but the planet isn't very good, the background looks fine to me
this doen't look like it was rendered in a renderer, why don't you try to use TS or some such
-
Because TS is Satan's trap for the foolish. As soon as you open it for the first time, it claims your soul for eternal torment and leaves you with a ****ty program that only works in the most technical sense of the word, adding insult to injury.
Whee! I should do product reviews for a living.
-
You need to work on the lighting, that's the biggest issue. Right now the lighting is too flat. The planet itself is easy to fix, just check 'real clouds' then play around with lunarcell.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
this doen't look like it was rendered in a renderer, why don't you try to use TS or some such
:confused:
Ehh..it's done in Lightwave.
By the way, here is an update. Hope this one doesn't suck too.
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/upload/Render4.jpg)
-
ok,lot's better, just tryto make a mutli-layered nebula, and make the blue ring around the sun a little more vague and further out.
but overall, :yes: :yes:
-
1 dont use backdrops they suck
2 engine glows dont look so great
3 a bit of motion blur never hurts
4 if you use nebulae as background dont use such HARD edged nebs ;)
5 use lvlshot tag ;)
6 can you send me the erin??? pliz :D
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
6 can you send me the erin??? pliz :D
Well the model is the same so if you still have Freespace 2, you have it too. ;)
Btw about backdrops. You have any other suggestion. By the way, how do you turn Field rendering on?
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
2 engine glows dont look so great
What are you smoking? They look fantastic!
But yeah, soften the nebula lots and make the sun ring much larger and fainter. You might want to tone down the intensity of the nebula blue, too, since it's overpowering the lights on the Erins.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Well the model is the same so if you still have Freespace 2, you have it too. ;)
ummm the last time i tried converting something with 3dexploration it sucked so how did you convert yours ?
field rendering is in camera options the bottom thing ;)
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
ummm the last time i tried converting something with 3dexploration it sucked so how did you convert yours ?
field rendering is in camera options the bottom thing ;)
Oh here is a fix for ya. If youre using LW, choose option STRETCH (sp). You will see that values are 1 1 1. Now change the values to -1 -1 -1 and it should solve your problem.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You can't expect all your work to be good. If you'd only see my first few attemts on CG art you'd laugh your ass off. :p
hey, I did :D
-
Originally posted by Venom
hey, I did :D
Shaddap j00!:D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Shaddap j00!:D
:lol:
to be honest I don't even remember any render from you save for that soldier :p
-
Originally posted by Venom
:lol:
to be honest I don't even remember any render from you save for that soldier :p
Eh... made 1 other render :p (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,13953.0.html)
Ok, but back on topic. Dont wanna steal Razors topic ;)
-
Originally posted by Razor
:confused:
Ehh..it's done in Lightwave.
By the way, here is an update. Hope this one doesn't suck too.
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/upload/Render4.jpg)
Whoa, nice. That's eerie, that shot... "it's too quiet out here."
-
Yup second one is WAY better :yes: I like it. Especially the second fighter. I think its cause there is no more Lunarcell planet. Those need to be done very precisely if you want them to look good.
-
Glad you like it. Loosing the planet was a good Idea, I think.
Bust still, I can't figure out how to turn that Field Rendering on. I went to Camera menu but didn't find anything.
-
Field rendering?
Hey, are those Erinyes bump-mapped? I love it. :)
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Hey, are those Erinyes bump-mapped? I love it. :)
Thanks. Yes, they are bump mapped.
-
Hey, you're using Lightwave right? Can you do this?
(http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/feature/digitalconfusion_01.jpg)
Not the strange looking guys, the depth of field/out of focus thing :)
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Hey, you're using Lightwave right? Can you do this?
(http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/feature/digitalconfusion_01.jpg)
Not the strange looking guys, the depth of field/out of focus thing :)
i don't use lightwave, but i think i know how.
just make three layers for the guys, make one a bit smaller and put it in the back, and blur it. keep one sharp and medium sized in the middle, and one enlarged and blurry on top. easy as pie.
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Hey, you're using Lightwave right? Can you do this?
(http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/feature/digitalconfusion_01.jpg)
Not the strange looking guys, the depth of field/out of focus thing :)
Wait, is that the effect of field rendering? Waoh, if I could figure out how to turn it on, my renders may look a bit better.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
just make three layers for the guys, make one a bit smaller and put it in the back, and blur it. keep one sharp and medium sized in the middle, and one enlarged and blurry on top. easy as pie.
Similar, but it doesn't produce the same effect as something which is out of focus. The light acts differently... I'm not sure if I can describe it very well. In any case, that method also fails when you've got objects that aren't in clearly delineated layers... or where you have further parts of the same object, like the far end of a destroyer, which is out of focus. That kind of thing can't be done convincingly with clever blur techniques.
-
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Similar, but it doesn't produce the same effect as something which is out of focus. The light acts differently... I'm not sure if I can describe it very well. In any case, that method also fails when you've got objects that aren't in clearly delineated layers... or where you have further parts of the same object, like the far end of a destroyer, which is out of focus. That kind of thing can't be done convincingly with clever blur techniques.
oh, ok, i was just reffering to the image you posted, it looked like it was made with that technique
-
Depth-of-field rendering in lightwave is easy. You need to select the camera, then go to the camera menu. Make sure anti-aliasing is on medium or higher, then select the depth-of-field button. Click focal distance (the distance at which objects will be fully in focus) and alter that as appropriate. There's an option to visually show the focal distance, but I've lost it ^_^ Just use trial and error until you find the correct focal distance to use for each render.
As for f-stop... On cameras you get a longer depth of field with a higher f-stop setting, and a smaller with a lower. It's to do with the size of the lens - higher f-stops make the lens smaller. Anyway, as far as you're concerned, if you want a larger area to be in focus either side of your focal distance, you'd lower the f-stop. That works inversely as well.
As for that procedural background in the second render, lower the contrast and 'small power'. That should make the edges less sharp. Procedurals are fun - just remember to play around with the rotation and scale settings so it doesn't look the same all the time.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Eh... made 1 other render :p (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,13953.0.html)
Ok, but back on topic. Dont wanna steal Razors topic ;)
By the way, Tiara, that render you made looks kinda cute. Well which is very unusual word to be used by me, but well. :cool:
-
Well, thank you :)
-
Well, the Erin is one of my favorite ships... :D
1st one = Blah. Peopel already splained' why though.
2nd one = Excellent. Only problem is the Nebs I think are sharp kinda liek ash said, but hardly noticable. Engine glows rock. :yes:
-
Thanks dude. Well I might have added some rays to the engine glows but I forgot that. Anyway, thanks for your advices guys. :)
-
It's much faster to render out to an rpf or zpic and do your DoF effects in post software like combustion or the xsi's fxtree
of course there are inherent problems with using that kind of DoF but its orders of magnitude faster than the spacially sampled stuff.
If you want bokeh effects you're going to have to put up with horribly long rendertimes im afraid though :(
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
Depth-of-field rendering in lightwave is easy. You need to select the camera, then go to the camera menu. Make sure anti-aliasing is on medium or higher, then select the depth-of-field button. Click focal distance (the distance at which objects will be fully in focus) and alter that as appropriate. There's an option to visually show the focal distance, but I've lost it ^_^ Just use trial and error until you find the correct focal distance to use for each render.
As for f-stop... On cameras you get a longer depth of field with a higher f-stop setting, and a smaller with a lower. It's to do with the size of the lens - higher f-stops make the lens smaller. Anyway, as far as you're concerned, if you want a larger area to be in focus either side of your focal distance, you'd lower the f-stop. That works inversely as well.
As for that procedural background in the second render, lower the contrast and 'small power'. That should make the edges less sharp. Procedurals are fun - just remember to play around with the rotation and scale settings so it doesn't look the same all the time.
Dude, you seem to know what you're on about, could you please do a FS render in this style? I've never seen one before and I'm dying to see how it'd turn out! :nod: :nod: