Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 6
2
How do I get a reasonable light? Less intense shadows?
Posted: 25 September 2012 07:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15922
Joined  2003-10-09
TheSavage64 - 25 September 2012 05:47 AM

I live in the North of England, what is this direct and ambient sunlight of which you speak? confused


It’s that strange light which sometimes peeks out from underneath all them black and grey clouds,

 Signature 

Chohole’s Space        Neil’Vs Freebies and stuff        Autumn Bryce Rendering Challenge        September Freebie Challenge
My DAZ 3D Gallery    11915

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2012 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1487
Joined  2011-09-25
TheSavage64 - 25 September 2012 05:47 AM

I live in the North of England, what is this direct and ambient sunlight of which you speak? confused

Something produced by an extremely bright, powerful, orb, outside the earth’s atmosphere.  BTW…what is this “rain” you’re mentioning?  Something new?

 Signature 

If you constantly look backward, it’s guaranteed you’ll run into something on your forward journey.
My Gallery Page: GussNemo’s Efforts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2012 12:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1611
Joined  2007-12-10
chohole - 25 September 2012 07:11 AM
TheSavage64 - 25 September 2012 05:47 AM

I live in the North of England, what is this direct and ambient sunlight of which you speak? confused


It’s that strange light which sometimes peeks out from underneath all them black and grey clouds,

Maybe in Wales it does… The only light that shines in the sky here is occasionally when the Police Helicopter is searching for a criminal of some kind. LOL

 Signature 

I’ve got nothing of my own to promote, no models, no tutorials, no website, nothin’, nada, nill, nowt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2012 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1487
Joined  2011-09-25
TheSavage64 - 26 September 2012 12:07 AM
chohole - 25 September 2012 07:11 AM
TheSavage64 - 25 September 2012 05:47 AM

I live in the North of England, what is this direct and ambient sunlight of which you speak? confused


It’s that strange light which sometimes peeks out from underneath all them black and grey clouds,

Maybe in Wales it does… The only light that shines in the sky here is occasionally when the Police Helicopter is searching for a criminal of some kind. LOL

LOL  Think they could hold still enough to use the light in a render?

 Signature 

If you constantly look backward, it’s guaranteed you’ll run into something on your forward journey.
My Gallery Page: GussNemo’s Efforts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2012 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2003-10-09
Rashad Carter - 24 September 2012 08:38 PM
_ PJF _ - 24 September 2012 07:57 PM

Two-thirds of a quarter isn’t a million miles away from a fifth…

Ah, true indeed. In fact the actual total of such an arrangement is actually around 1/6, you are most certainly in the ballpark. I do not intend to disagree with that part of it.


Well, the 1/6th is “in the ball park” and the 1/5th is the final score. The “two-thirds of a quarter” derived from that information you linked to doesn’t take into account that scattering is only one of the processes that diminish direct sunlight (a fact I mentioned earlier). The other processes lessen the direct light further without adding it to the skylight, and the proportion of direct light thus decreases. The result is a clear summer noon figure of 20% skylight.

By saying “two-thirds of a quarter isn’t a million miles away from a fifth”, I was merely pointing out charitably that the logic of the statement you had previously misread led to a similar result as objective measurement.


It is difficult for me to compare your images with regards to realistic lighting. The first is such a more realistic looking image in overall aspects that any benefits of lighting in the second are obscured (to me). I think if you transferred the foliage materials from the second into the first, you would be much happier with it. God may know the sun is bright enough in the first, but I’m a doubting Thomas. I think if you increased the brightness of both the sun and the fill lighting, you would be closer to a Maldives look. Reduce the specularity of the water, and make the reflection blurry. Reduce the size of the girl’s thighs. ;-)

On the whole I don’t like IBL and image domes. The result reminds me early of TV westerns (Lone Ranger, etc) where they mixed location and studio footage. The studio footage stood out unrealistically like a pretend sore thumb, and broke the spell. IBL does that to me. Everything looks lit with lots of studio lights in a hurry.


BTW, Rashad. When you want to invite discussion of technical aspects it’s probably best to use simple, example scenes. It’s pretty difficult to dive in and academically critique creativity that has obviously had many, many, many hours of dedicated effort and police work - sorry - passion poured into it.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09

You know, not to ruffle any feathers but as a person not involved watching this debate develope I find it kind of hard to consider the discussion technical or an academic critique of creativity when one says things like “two-thirds of a quarter isn’t a million miles away from a fifth” such a statement feels like something more suited to sarcasm then academia. I mean how is it academic to use vast distances of millions of miles to say that two fractions aren’t that different from one another?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3537
Joined  2004-10-01
LordHardDriven - 27 September 2012 11:18 AM

You know, not to ruffle any feathers but as a person not involved watching this debate develope I find it kind of hard to consider the discussion technical or an academic critique of creativity when one says things like “two-thirds of a quarter isn’t a million miles away from a fifth” such a statement feels like something more suited to sarcasm then academia. I mean how is it academic to use vast distances of millions of miles to say that two fractions aren’t that different from one another?

I find Peter’s argumentation entertaining. It’s an exercise for for the brain.

 

 Signature 

**  [ Stuff by David Brinnen and myself**  [ My DAZ 3D Gallery**  [ My Website**  OPC 4565 **

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2003-10-09
LordHardDriven - 27 September 2012 11:18 AM

...such a statement feels like something more suited to sarcasm then academia…

I only inserted “academically” after I noticed I’d written “many, many, many” (dropped another ‘80s bad comedy clue in there, too). I’ve made some effort to break up the formal discussion with silly asides to keep things friendly, but if you prefer to feel some sarcasm - go right ahead.

 

I mean how is it academic to use vast distances of millions of miles to say that two fractions aren’t that different from one another?

It isn’t. The metaphorical statement “isn’t a million miles from” specifically implies a lack of vast distances of millions of miles.


It’s important to stay calm and work to break down the barriers to communication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEK5P2G5h1k

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 11:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  726
Joined  2006-05-26

Mark,

Peter just likes to throw a little silly in with his serious. We haven’t always gotten along well but now we get on fine. I dont want to mislead the OP so I appreciate his feedback, even if he can be a little passive aggressive here and there, He’s my Bud.

Peter,
As you know, I am a paranoid obsessed type of person, never ever ever happy with ANYTHING I’ve made. I am curious to know which aspects of the first version you find more realistic than the second. The first version won a lot of feedback about the water not looking right, that the foam was missing. The whitening of the water toward the shore was my attempt at foam, it didnt go over well with viewers. I decided for the new one to use a real terrain for the water and to scrap the slab. The foam I also took in a whole different direction. I even applied a caustic gel to the water in the second one for a little more realism, but alas I have no idea if any of it worked. I do appreciate any feedback. Thanks again Peter.

 Signature 

Please view my Daz3d User Gallery
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#users/465/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  506
Joined  2004-06-12
Rashad Carter - 27 September 2012 11:53 PM

As you know, I am a paranoid obsessed type of person, never ever ever happy with ANYTHING I’ve made.

But to your credit, at least you still show it even if you’re not happy with it, and that’s something I personally never bring myself to do which is why you never see renders from me.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was something about the water, why it looks wrong:

Out of the five you posted, the first two are laughable when I consider your skills with Bryce.  You’re not an amateur but my dog can render better water than that.  The last three, however, the water looks very good, but on the very last one, there is a perfectly clear indication of what’s wrong with the water.

Refraction looks wrong.

Over recent months I’ve seen hundreds, no, thousands of beach and coastline photos of Ibiza (Spanish island), and one thing that strikes me odd about your last render is the refraction, it’s picking-up far too much detail and that makes the water look odd.  Number three and four don’t appear to suffer from it as much, but the fifth makes it obvious that refraction is at least one of the issues.

Comparing to render number five:

Look at how detail is refracted in this angle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/victoriapeckham/6116273670/

Compared to this angle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/globalestates/1589328828/

You’ll notice it hardly looks any different, so what you need to be asking yourself is, why?

Lots of things to consider, but mainly, bear in mind the complexity of the ripples or waves because although that doesn’t change the refractive index of the water in real life, when we render water we need to make-up for deficiencies we have elsewhere (and unless we’re totally obsessed, we all render them).  For example, we know if a face is fake because we pick-up on things, and it’s the same with water, because although it is visually endless, we still know when something doesn’t look right, and when a render of water doesn’t look right, it is because we failed in other areas.

The only way you will get accurate water is to know more about the water and model it, surface it, and render it as accurately as possible (remember, it’s a ray-tracer, has no mind of it’s own, and does exactly what you tell it to do.  But we don’t have to be super accurate, so we need to make up for that deficiency.  So, while you might have a refractive index that works at a certain angle, it is just a fluke because other setting that are wrong are allowing it to pass as acceptable, but that might not be the case when you move the camera to a different angle.

Shapes of the ripples themselves is going to be pretty much essential to make it believable, and this is why people find it easy to render calm water but fall flat on their faces when they attempt an ocean.  Calm water can be anything from a glass like finish (easy) to a slight soft-edged ripple (still easy).  Oceans are a totally different thing, and if you give your water the properties used for an ocean when you’re rendering calm water, we know it’s not right the moment we see it.

Not very technical I know, but it’s the same no matter what we render (I’ve pointed this out many times).  Whenever can’t do that, forget about following simple things like, ah, I set my refraction to water so that must be correct.  Nope, so as well as the refraction you need to consider the shapes of the ripples and waves as well.

Another aspect of making such a render believable is demonstrated here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andybateman/2402808893/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2003-10-09
pumeco - 28 September 2012 09:33 AM

The last three, however, the water looks very good, but on the very last one, there is a perfectly clear indication of what’s wrong with the water.

Refraction looks wrong.


Well I was having a cup of tea at work - but now I’ll have to wipe it off the screen and go and make another.

Yeah, c’mon Rashad - you can do better than that! :mrgreen:

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  506
Joined  2004-06-12

I don’t know what’s funnier:

A - You being a posh git and still having to make your own tea, or ...
B - You haven’t noticed the refraction is indeed wrong :mrgreen:

And anyway, I was being perfectly serious.

Refraction (and Reflection (and Specular)) are vital, especially with stuff like water which depends on all three.  People screw-up on water a lot, just like they screw-up on eyes a lot.  I mean how many times do you see a render where the eyes look dead or glazed-over?

I see it a lot, too often, and It’s the same sort of problem that arises when dealing with water.  To deal with it, things need isolating and to be tweaked in a more controlled scene environment if accuracy is needed, otherwise, it’s just observational, knowing when it looks wrong and tweaking it in it’s surroundings at a predetermined camera angle until it doesn’t.

PS:  The only reason you have to wipe the Earl Grey off’ your monitor is because you saw that arse.  At first, there was merely the sound of the bottom of your cup rattling against the saucer as you trembled, but then suddenly you could contain yourself no more and, well, found yourself needing a cloth for the monitor :-D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
_ PJF _ - 27 September 2012 05:00 PM
LordHardDriven - 27 September 2012 11:18 AM

...such a statement feels like something more suited to sarcasm then academia…

I only inserted “academically” after I noticed I’d written “many, many, many” (dropped another ‘80s bad comedy clue in there, too). I’ve made some effort to break up the formal discussion with silly asides to keep things friendly, but if you prefer to feel some sarcasm - go right ahead.

 

I mean how is it academic to use vast distances of millions of miles to say that two fractions aren’t that different from one another?

It isn’t. The metaphorical statement “isn’t a million miles from” specifically implies a lack of vast distances of millions of miles.


It’s important to stay calm and work to break down the barriers to communication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEK5P2G5h1k

Umm perhaps you didn’t realize this but typically when people feel the need to break up a formal discussion with silly asides to keep things friendly, those asides are quite often considered sarcasm. Being that you like to go academic with discussions then surely you know sarcasm can be a form of humor. The thing is typically when one feels the need to break up a formal discussion with humor they don’t refer to that discussion as an academic critique.

Yes I understand the function of the word isn’t in your original statement but saying a thing isn’t something it obviously isn’t is awkward and clumsy, not academic or sarcastic even.

I’ll pass on the video, I’m perfectly calm and the barriers to communication appear to me to be a figment of your, perhaps, overactive imagination.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  927
Joined  2003-10-09
Rashad Carter - 27 September 2012 11:53 PM

Mark,

Peter just likes to throw a little silly in with his serious. We haven’t always gotten along well but now we get on fine. I dont want to mislead the OP so I appreciate his feedback, even if he can be a little passive aggressive here and there, He’s my Bud.

That’s all fine and dandy but I wasn’t coming to your defense, you’re a grown man, I presume you can defend yourself. I was mainly seeing if your bud there could take as good as he can give, preliminary results suggests the answer is no. I was also trying to subtly suggest that such “academic critques” don’t really belong in a forum whose primary function is to help Bryce users solve problems they’re having. I really doubt the OP understands how to get reasonable light any better after having read you two debating your personal opinions of what sunlight is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 02:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2003-10-09
pumeco - 28 September 2012 11:43 AM

I don’t know what’s funnier:

A - You being a posh git and still having to make your own tea, or ...
B - You haven’t noticed the refraction is indeed wrong :mrgreen:

Try C - You haven’t noticed…

And anyway, I was being perfectly serious.

:nodding:


It’s a bugger about the tea making. Austerity, and all that. We have an old saying here at PJF MegaCorp: it’s a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it’s a depression when I have to make my own tea.

 

I mean how many times do you see a render where the eyes look dead or glazed-over?

Oh, I know. There’s an example used on this page but in this case the render is spot-on accurate.

 

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2