Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 2
2
Yet Another Carrara Render Thread
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15
Frank__ - 12 July 2012 04:50 PM

I would put the camera down to the ship’s surface, parallel to the length extension, put the camera something up and don’t exceed a downward degree of maybe 3 to 5. Then use DoF, lots of. Using a strict vanishing point perspective and playing with focal length, until the scaling is impressive.


Regarding implying scale, I recall years ago I was driving with some friends in Miami, and we got lost around the port area where the cruise ships dock. Needless to say, I was driving…


Anyway, there were a bunch of ships docked there, and one of my buddies points out one of the ships and says it’s the largest (or was it one of the largest) cruise ships ever made (at that time). I looked at it, and my first impression was that it didn’t really seem that big. And then we pulled over to the side of the road, and I started noticing stuff about it. Like the water slide on one of the upper decks looked freakin’ tiny. And the cabins, there were millions of them, were little tiny details. And the more I noticed these tiny details of stuff that I intuitively knew the size of, the immense scale of that thing hit me.


The obvious point being….


People only know how big something is if they have something to compare it with. You can show a photograph of the largest space ship in the entire universe, but unless the viewer has something in the image to compare it with, it’s your word against his. Everyone knows how big a human is. Give or take 6 feet. Nobody knows how big a window is. Could be 2 feet by 3 feet, could be 100 feet by 100 feet. Nobody knows how big an antenna is. Could be 3 feet, could be 300 feet.


Camera lens adjustments (wide angle, etc.) help, but only in a very limited way. I could have a small ship, but be very close to it, and need a fisheye lens to get it all. Doesn’t mean it’s big. And intuitively people realize all this. We’ve been seeing images our whole lives, and our brains remember that stuff. 


And one more example….


Show someone a photo of a planet, say Mars or the Moon. Do you get a sense of its size? Not really. Line up 15 photos of different planets and moons and space rocks, use whatever lens tricks you want. Can you tell which is bigger, or how big any one of them is? Nope.


Now show them a photo of the Earth. Suddenly, you realize how vast it is. Why? Because you KNOW that the continent you see there is North America, and you know where New York is, and you’ve probably flown across the continent, and you know it takes 5 hours by jet and days by car. You intuitively know exactly how big parts of it are, which makes you immediately understand its overall scale.


Anyway, speaking of perspectives, and more importantly, Frank and I share the same perspectives on films apparently. Black Hole…not good. Superman…not good. And I was so hoping Black Hole would be awesome. 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  228
Joined  2006-09-01
evilproducer - 12 July 2012 06:16 PM
Frank__ - 12 July 2012 04:50 PM

snip me smile

As it happens, I’ve already tried a closer in view of the ship. Didn’t check the the camera degrees as it was rendered about a day and a half ago. I haven’t gotten around to posting it yet. I did render a depth pass to play with DOF, but haven’t had a chance to take it into Photoshop. I usually set up multiple cameras or camera positions to test what I think looks more dramatic.

Rendering without all the fancy background stuff at the lowest level is at the moment my choice to get the subject done. Everything else follows later. (But you already know this; I’m just following the advice posted in the “how to crtitique”-render thread.)

DOF in Photoshop will be better, because it’s faster. (You know this of course, too.) Aaeeh, what have I to contribute ... nothing smile But more to the personal taste!

evilproducer - 12 July 2012 06:16 PM

I agree, about the general quality of The Black Hole, except to say that the first half is pretty decent. From there it descends into a steaming pile. The design of the ships and the other technology (ignoring the robots) was pretty singular, unique and as Holly said, “pretty.”

]

In my mind I only see a black hole, never saw it again since 1980. I was so much disappointed on this movie. Had so much hope after the failure of “Battlestar Gallactica”, which was in Germany a theatre movie (!) compiled from the US TV series, what I didn’t know then, too. I didn’t watch “Tron” after the “Black Hole”-failure, because Disney and Sci-Fi was a no-go for some years.

evilproducer - 12 July 2012 06:16 PM

2001 A Space Odyssey was also very cool and grounded in much more plausible physics. It’s also extremely plodding. Ridley Scott’s Alien, did an awesome job setting scale.”

Of hard Sci-Fi, “2001” is still some of the best, maybe the best. It lacks today of speed, but I don’t see any living director anywhere near Kubrick. When “Alien” was released I’ve read some interview with Scott and Dykstra and they said they’d watched “2001” over and over again, and if they hadn’t found some flaws on the SFX they would never had done “Alien” (paraphrased). Good, that they found some flaws!

 

evilproducer - 12 July 2012 06:16 PM

The Black Hole a disaster (and rightly so in so, so many regards) Silent Running was my cringe worthy 70’s sci-fi movie experience. That and Star Trek the Motionless Picture.

Following your opinion of the “Motionless Picture”, great parody, btw, wasn’t into “Star Trek” after I saw that for the next twenty years smile, but what do you have against “Silent Running” - besides that this is the first movie propagatinjg the environmental pest - the SFX is great, Doug Trumbull was the SFX-head on “2001”, Dykstra was his adlatus, the Joan Baez song was great if you missed the text (it’s easier for non-native speakers) and Bruce Dern is alwaqs a winner. Oh, how far we gone away from the subject. Don’t care.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  228
Joined  2006-09-01
JoeMamma2000 - 12 July 2012 06:32 PM
Frank__ - 12 July 2012 04:50 PM

I would put the camera down to the ship’s surface, parallel to the length extension, put the camera something up and don’t exceed a downward degree of maybe 3 to 5. Then use DoF, lots of. Using a strict vanishing point perspective and playing with focal length, until the scaling is impressive.


Regarding implying scale, I recall years ago I was driving with some friends in Miami, and we got lost around the port area where the cruise ships dock. Needless to say, I was driving…


Anyway, there were a bunch of ships docked there, and one of my buddies points out one of the ships and says it’s the largest (or was it one of the largest) cruise ships ever made (at that time). I looked at it, and my first impression was that it didn’t really seem that big. And then we pulled over to the side of the road, and I started noticing stuff about it. Like the water slide on one of the upper decks looked freakin’ tiny. And the cabins, there were millions of them, were little tiny details. And the more I noticed these tiny details of stuff that I intuitively knew the size of, the immense scale of that thing hit me.


The obvious point being….


People only know how big something is if they have something to compare it with. You can show a photograph of the largest space ship in the entire universe, but unless the viewer has something in the image to compare it with, it’s your word against his. Everyone knows how big a human is. Give or take 6 feet. Nobody knows how big a window is. Could be 2 feet by 3 feet, could be 100 feet by 100 feet. Nobody knows how big an antenna is. Could be 3 feet, could be 300 feet.


Camera lens adjustments (wide angle, etc.) help, but only in a very limited way. I could have a small ship, but be very close to it, and need a fisheye lens to get it all. Doesn’t mean it’s big. And intuitively people realize all this. We’ve been seeing images our whole lives, and our brains remember that stuff.

Joe, you’re of course right. And I can add some own disappointing experience, too: lots of years ago I was at (on/above???) Sigiriya, Sri Lanka. My mother didn’t want to take the way up to the highest level: I took a photograph of her sitting some 70 meters above and it was obvious that I was on some different high level, really different level. On the top I took some panorama photographs and then begged some fellows to hold me on my belt, so I could shoot some photographs from the edge straight to the ground because I thought that this would be the most impressive shots. Edge, ground, 180 degrees, me 135 degrees: most boring photographs, because no one can decide from the photos if it’s 5 or 25 or 50 meters (it was 300). I missed the comparison.

Lesson learned.

Your advice of people behind the windows to give the necessary comparison point I find a little bit questionable: do you want to be on a spaceship where every other alien can see what you do in the bathroom? smile  Joooking. Spaceship windows have to be thick, so thick you can’t see anything. BTW: why should have spaceships have windows? (Okay; I’m not so much any more into Sci´-Fi, so I’m maybe too critical.)

I had some other thought: if the camera is near enough to the ship: why not use something like a flag for comparison? Not a flag mast, biut something painted on the sides. Some writing would help, too, because we’re conditioned to compare the size of some writing or painting to our own experience like on airplanes. Also some different sized satellite dishes could help: smallest would be 1 meter, biggest 15 meter. Maybe there are better ideas, keep them coming. 

JoeMamma2000 - 12 July 2012 06:32 PM

Anyway, speaking of perspectives, and more importantly, Frank and I share the same perspectives on films apparently. Black Hole…not good. Superman…not good. And I was so hoping Black Hole would be awesome. 

smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5921
Joined  2006-08-27

I think in this case, the scale is almost going to have to be assumed as there aren’t port holes or other easily recognized human sized reference points. I have to make the assumption that if you’ve watched the film, then you “know” the relative size of the ship.


A Star Trek Star ship is easier to depict because of it’s place in popular culture, and it also has windows, that look like windows or port holes, so there is an inherent assumption about size.

Image Attachments
Enterprise_and_Bird_of_prey.jpg
 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15

Guys, step back for a minute….


I know it’s difficult getting into your viewers’ brains, but if you want to make images that will affect others, you have to. And keep in mind that you have what’s called “artistic license”. And it’s more than just a license, it’s often an obligation.


IF your goal is merely to recreate exactly what others have done, then that’s simple. Do it. Anyone with some software and some premade content and a little knowledge of how to spin dials can mimic someone else’s work.


But if you want your images to affect others, you have to think differently. In that case, it doesn’t matter if you are exactly replicating what you’ve seen in a film. Nobody cares. What matters is that you get your point across with your image. Nobody cares if you generate the 1.3 billionth boring image of a Star Trek ship against a bunch of stars. What they care about is having the image affect them in some way.


If it doesn’t have windows, make them. If the windows are actually 10 feet thick (which they aren’t, just look at the Apollo capsule windows, they can take photos out of them and have enough visibility dock with other craft…), then make believe they aren’t. Artistic license. The goal is far more important than how you get there. 99.999999% of viewers won’t care, they’re so caught up in seeing tiny humans and that VAST and awsome spaceship that looks so cool. Only a bunch of sci fi freaks will analyze the movie frame by frame 10 years after it’s release to make a list of all inconsistencies.


If you need some guys hanging off the ship doing a space walk, cleaning windows, adjusting antennas, do it. If you need some tiny spacecraft entering the big craft’s hangar deck, do it. At least that will give some relative dimensions. THAT’S where the art and skill and ingenuity comes into play, and what separates the really good artists from the really bad ones. Figure out how you can give the viewer a sense of awe and enormous size. Or a sense of speed and motion. Or whatever else you want them to feel. If having humans doesn’t work for you, figure something else out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 02:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1694
Joined  0

it didn’t occur to me that you were recreating a specific scene….

But that so makes sense, if you’re rendering the Flying Dutchman, it’s going to be rounding the cape in a storm… So yeah, this is the ship forever on the precipice of the bowl of oatmeal… LOL.

Image Attachments
BlackHole38.jpg
 Signature 

320+ TUTORIALS for Carrara at CARRARA CAFE
C3DE - CARRARA 3D EXPO MAGAZINE - the showcase for Carrara Artists

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1694
Joined  0
Frank__ - 12 July 2012 04:50 PM
evilproducer - 11 July 2012 02:14 PM

(Besides of “2001” I maybe remember Ridley Scott did something similar on the establishing shot of Nostromo in “Alien”, (Trumbull’s “Silent Running” isn’t aware at the moment, but I bet, he did something similar), better than Lucas in “Star Wars”, where the movement helped. And why, oh so helpful contributors, do you had to mention the “Black Hole Disney Disaster”, which made me cringe in the movie theatre seat when I was only 15, don’t remember before or after “Superman”, which made me cringe, too smile Now back to the subject.)


I agree, about the general quality of The Black Hole, except to say that the first half is pretty decent. From there it descends into a steaming pile. The design of the ships and the other technology (ignoring the robots) was pretty singular, unique and as Holly said, “pretty.”


2001 A Space Odyssey was also very cool and grounded in much more plausible physics. It’s also extremely plodding. Ridley Scott’s Alien, did an awesome job setting scale. The shot that comes to mind is the miniscule looking Nostromo against the planet. I have to say, that while you consider The Black Hole a disaster (and rightly so in so, so many regards) Silent Running was my cringe worthy 70’s sci-fi movie experience. That and Star Trek the Motionless Picture.

LOL, I did a whole blog essay on Black Hole. If you remember was one of the first Disney film rated PG…. According to what I could research, the studio was literally divided with the art dept telling production what to shoot. The original ending put them in a sort of infinity dimension where they were gods and people and everything everywhere (a 2001 ending).... And production (and the actors) literally refused to film certain scenes.

And what was wrong with the robots?!

Image Attachments
BlackHole03.jpg
 Signature 

320+ TUTORIALS for Carrara at CARRARA CAFE
C3DE - CARRARA 3D EXPO MAGAZINE - the showcase for Carrara Artists

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5921
Joined  2006-08-27

Ah yes, Maximillian was cool and threatening. The storm trooper wannabe’s not so much. Vincent’s only saving grace might have been his voice actor (Roddy McDowel?)

 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
New Member
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2008-07-04

Hi,
Please let me know if I can post here a render with a female that has cloth see-through, that allows breast and nipples be seen.
I just want to post my last wet cloth shader.
Hugs,
Marius.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  16743
Joined  2003-10-09

Unfortunately the answer to that is No, not at the moement, as we have no content filters. We hope that this can be sorted out some time in the future. This post expalins the current restrictions

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewannounce/3279_98/

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        NeilV’s Freebies and stuff        Winter Bryce Rendering Challenge        November Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
New Member
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2008-07-04
chohole - 16 September 2012 09:45 AM

Unfortunately the answer to that is No, not at the moement, as we have no content filters. We hope that this can be sorted out some time in the future. This post expalins the current restrictions

http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewannounce/3279_98/

Thank you Chohole for the kind reply,
I’ve got the picture, no hurry.
Anyway, I’m working on that shader for 3 or 4 years, it is still under development.
Most of my day and night time, I’m working on it, no need to hurry though.
Thanks a lot, all people here were always but only extremely kind.
Hugs and, have a nice weekend!
Marius.

“Time is just a powerful trap, skip it! ” wink

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2