Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 3
2
Creating a asteroid belt ( 2 different tutorials )
Posted: 02 November 2012 06:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3549
Joined  2004-10-01

If you have some knowledge about the subject you want to depict in a render, chances are that you come up with something that might be real, even though it is fiction. This is beautiful - but it also puts a limit to creativity. If you have something in your mind which is not based on some facts, because you’re not aware of them, you may come up with something that has no bearing to any reality (as we know) but stir the imagination of the beholder.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1493
Joined  2011-09-25

If art was totally about realism there’d be very few artists.  I think it’s fine to try and reproduce something as exact as possible,  but whose point of view is used to determine exactness?  I think I’d just as soon do something to my own tastes and let others decide what they see.

 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: 02 November 2012 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2003-10-09

With regards to the issue of “NASA” realism, Mr Brinnen’s splendid asteroid field image reminded me of numerous artists’ impressions I’ve seen accompanying astronomy articles / papers about planetary formation. It didn’t take much of an internet search to find a similar result:
http://www.worldandijournal.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26894

Which just goes to show that, with the aid of Bryce and his skilfully applied imagination, David can see quite a long way from his vantage point on the edge of the North Sea.
(The git.) :mrgreen:

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2008-11-04

I always try for accuracy when I can, but I love a great image, and yours looks great! Not being an astronomer, my take is that most wouldn’t notice the inaccuracies.

I was just thinking of my daughter (the one with a history degree), who was TOTALLY DISGUSTED with the movie “Clash of the Titans”, because it had, brace yourselves… a BLACK PEGASUS!!! She railed about the fact that there was no such thing as a black pegasus (I guess there WAS such a thing as a white pegasus, LOL!)

 Signature 

“We probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of us if we could know how seldom they do.”
Mark Twain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 04:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2599
Joined  2004-07-06
_ PJF _ - 02 November 2012 05:51 PM

With regards to the issue of “NASA” realism, Mr Brinnen’s splendid asteroid field image reminded me of numerous artists’ impressions I’ve seen accompanying astronomy articles / papers about planetary formation. It didn’t take much of an internet search to find a similar result:
http://www.worldandijournal.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26894

Which just goes to show that, with the aid of Bryce and his skilfully applied imagination, David can see quite a long way from his vantage point on the edge of the North Sea.
(The git.) :mrgreen:

Thank you.  As it happens if I look really hard, sometimes I can even see the sea!

So yes, you did manage to pick out one of the images I’d pulled up on Google to figure out how this scene should look.  But what I couldn’t tell myself just by looking was which images were artistic impressions and which were space photographs (if any?).  Since such space photographs I have seen don’t look any less real to me than many of the artistic impressions.

Also, I have been meaning to ask, and doubtless this is a daft questions but who is Mr Green?

For Cjreynolds, I offer this image I picked off the internet.  To answer an argument about how Unicorns fly.  Since Unicorns are not real, their wings are not real either, so they cannot generate lift in ordinary “real” air - the wings must be just be for show.  The answer I discovered was rocket power.  (And this also explains where rainbows come from - see image).  Rainbows, also, are clearly not real.  Given the “output” of the Unicorn shown in this technical diagram of one in flight - I also concluded that they must feed on fairies.  Careful examination of the plate shows it to be a copy of an image from an early cave painting dating back to 40,000 BC and may well have provided the inspiration for Leonardo Dicaprio’s helicopter sketches, basing the “aerial screw” on the mistaken belief that it was the rotation of the twisted horn that lifts the Unicorn into the air and that the rainbow is just an escape of exhaust gasses.  It turned out though that it was all just a dream within a dream…

Image Attachments
Living_the_dream.jpg
 Signature 

that Bryce Tutorials Info and this Products made by Horo and myself and a link to my gallery at DAZ 3D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 07:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2599
Joined  2004-07-06

Had a go at something like the Voyager image…

Uses this model http://www.daz3d.com/shop/dsc-001

And the Spherical Mapper to provide quick recombination of HDRI backdrop and scene in Bryce.  Gamma correction in PSP8

Image Attachments
Looking_into_the_sun1.jpg
 Signature 

that Bryce Tutorials Info and this Products made by Horo and myself and a link to my gallery at DAZ 3D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1493
Joined  2011-09-25

LOL  David that unicorn explanation was too much.  Thanks for the laughs.

 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: 03 November 2012 08:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  655
Joined  2010-02-18

Yes, this whole ‘realism’ thingy is something I’ve been looking into since working with Bryce. It surely must be possible to produce an image of a concept that we can’t see. No? Just because we can’t put actual cameras there (e.g. inside an atom, at the outer edges of space), if we know about the actual, physical properties of an object and about the space in which they occupy (in the case of the atom we would know, say, it size, its orbit, how it interacts with another atom…etc.,, in the case of the asteroid we would know its makeup constituent, its reflective properties…etc.,), then it must be possible to construct a ‘realistic’ image view of such conceptual topics without actually knowing what they look like.

I’ve been experimenting with photo-realistic material lately concerning the face and then wrapping it onto a model mesh head (see below). To me, the human models available don’t present as entirely natural. So, to that extent I applied an actual photo of skin, eyes and lips to one of the head mesh models available just to see if in the end it would look, well, natural. The results were disappointing, and I still end up with an unnatural look. I mean, if I were to put a photo of a head alongside the virtual one created, it would be obvious which was the photo and which the rendered work.

What is happening here? Is it an issue of resolution, one of the skin’s properties, one of light, one of the material, one of bump properties, the mesh model itself etc.,? Or, is it that softwares are incapable of producing photo-realistic works? I don’t know.

Apologies here for including a head model into an asteroid thread, however, if David can include flying unicorns, then I think I’m safe…heheee wink
Jay

Image Attachments
head-test.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1493
Joined  2011-09-25

@Jay:  You left out perception.  Perhaps faces don’t look real because we each have an expectation when we see a created face.  We believe eyes should look just so, ears the same, and mouths likewise.  We even believe the head has to be a certain shape.  Perhaps what we need to do is not interpret what we see but produce only what we see, leaving our perceptions on the shelf.

 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: 03 November 2012 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  655
Joined  2010-02-18

Guss…yes, very good point. There’s an old saying in the artworld that’s taught to nearly every new student venturing into the media art (well, it was in my days anyway) and I think it applies to what you are saying. Those wise words go: ‘Paint what you see, not what you know to be there!’ It’s an easy saying to read alright, but then acting on it is another thing, I guess, as these days we ‘see’ (and I’m not only talking here about the visual side-of things) too much.

Jay

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2599
Joined  2004-07-06

I would say lighting is the thing that is most noticeably detracting from the realism.  I also suggest working with hands first rather than faces - faces are the most difficult of subjects because our brains devote huge resources into processing them.

 Signature 

that Bryce Tutorials Info and this Products made by Horo and myself and a link to my gallery at DAZ 3D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3549
Joined  2004-10-01
David Brinnen - 03 November 2012 04:03 AM

Also, I have been meaning to ask, and doubtless this is a daft questions but who is Mr Green?

Mr. Green was my landlord when I stayed in West Sussex on 1971.

The picture of the unicorn explains a lot. smile

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3549
Joined  2004-10-01
Jamahoney - 03 November 2012 08:46 AM

Yes, this whole ‘realism’ thingy is something I’ve been looking into since working with Bryce. It surely must be possible to produce an image of a concept that we can’t see. No? Just because we can’t put actual cameras there (e.g. inside an atom, at the outer edges of space), if we know about the actual, physical properties of an object and about the space in which they occupy (in the case of the atom we would know, say, it size, its orbit, how it interacts with another atom…etc.,, in the case of the asteroid we would know its makeup constituent, its reflective properties…etc.,), then it must be possible to construct a ‘realistic’ image view of such conceptual topics without actually knowing what they look like.

Ludek Pesek was one who took everything that was known at the time and painted how it could be: http://www.ludekpesek.ch/ Many of his space art paintings were featured in the National Geographic magazine.

Jamahoney - 03 November 2012 08:46 AM

I’ve been experimenting with photo-realistic material lately concerning the face and then wrapping it onto a model mesh head (see below). To me, the human models available don’t present as entirely natural. So, to that extent I applied an actual photo of skin, eyes and lips to one of the head mesh models available just to see if in the end it would look, well, natural. The results were disappointing, and I still end up with an unnatural look. I mean, if I were to put a photo of a head alongside the virtual one created, it would be obvious which was the photo and which the rendered work.

What is happening here? Is it an issue of resolution, one of the skin’s properties, one of light, one of the material, one of bump properties, the mesh model itself etc.,? Or, is it that softwares are incapable of producing photo-realistic works? I don’t know.

You may try with a specularity map. Rashad did this a while ago and he came up with quite good results. Human skin transpires a bit and this can be emulated with specularity. What is also missing is sub-surface scattering, something Bryce cannot properly do yet.

 

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 03:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  655
Joined  2010-02-18

David...thanks on the lighting and hands suggestion. I was been too presumptuous in thinking I could create an actual, photorealistic face from simply overlaying a real skin on a head mesh, so further experimentation required. Perhaps, I had greater aspirations also in being too Wittgenstein-ish “The face is the soul of the body”...phew…that one just flew right over my head wink  In reality, however, I would rather just push a button and have it all done for me smile

Horo...very nice images by Pesek – have come across one or two of his in the past. I recall others like Rob McColl who you’ll know did great conceptual artworks for Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey – still my favourite movie today; there was Chesley Bonestell’s too, Don Davies...and so many others.

Will look into the specularity map suggestion, however, at this stage I’m thinking I don’t yet have the necessary skills as digital art is new to me, let alone Bryce, too. It is still frustrating, however, knowing what you want to put across, but can’t because of lack of experience in Bryce, but, I’m getting better in finding my way around. Terms, too, are an issue I have - e.g. go to the IBL, set the settings in the TA, turn on volumetric, don’t use a primitive here, do use a UV there…etc smile

Jay

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2012 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2599
Joined  2004-07-06

Jamahoney, you make a very good point about our use of jargon.  I will add to my “to do” list to make something that explains all the TLA’s (three letter acronyms) and similar short hand concepts we casually throw around the forums.  The last thing we want do to is put people off using Bryce by making the process seem needlessly opaque because of the lazy way we talk about things.

 Signature 

that Bryce Tutorials Info and this Products made by Horo and myself and a link to my gallery at DAZ 3D

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2