I hate to burst David’s bubble (ahem…‘nuff said , but I don’t get an underwater city feel to any of them.
Depending upon depth, of course, I wonder would putting more light at the top of the edge of the image that then decreases towards darker light (yes, an ‘oxymoron’) work? Or, another effect, would putting in something like minute, semi-transparent wavy patterns (vertically, like one sees in gas fumes etc., ) across portions of the image work? Or would they work horizontally, too?
I’ve only ever seen one or two good underwater artworks, so they can be a bit ‘picky’ to get right.
Jay
Edit: Yeah, postwork is always an easy escape for all of us, but I like trying to avoid it (not always, mind) using Bryce, as it’s quite a good practice to push its limits that little bit further, when one can. Said, he…like he knows what he’s talking about - being a Bryce noob
I hate to burst David’s bubble (ahem…‘nuff said , but I don’t get an underwater city feel to any of them.
Depending upon depth, of course, I wonder would putting more light at the top of the edge of the image that then decreases towards darker light (yes, an ‘oxymoron’) work? Or, another effect, would putting in something like minute, semi-transparent wavy patterns (vertically, like one sees in gas fumes etc., ) across portions of the image work? Or would they work horizontally, too?
I’ve only ever seen one or two good underwater artworks, so they can be a bit ‘picky’ to get right.
Jay
Edit: Yeah, postwork is always an easy escape for all of us, but I like trying to avoid it (not always, mind) using Bryce, as it’s quite a good practice to push its limits that little bit further, when one can. Said, he…like he knows what he’s talking about - being a Bryce noob
Perfectly valid observations. Underwater is very tricky… I might have said that. OK, here’s a further modification of the idea.
I’m still not convinced. This one convinced me http://nibor.horo.ch/rr14/h14-02.html though it needs more city and less landscape, perhaps no “ceiling”, no plants. The bubbles look good but where do they come from? They seem huge - or are near the camera.
I’m still not convinced. This one convinced me http://nibor.horo.ch/rr14/h14-02.html though it needs more city and less landscape, perhaps no “ceiling”, no plants. The bubbles look good but where do they come from? They seem huge - or are near the camera.
I am beginning to suspect that more visual clues are needed, so cutting out the ceiling or the plants would detract from the impression of being underwater. Given the earlier explanation form PJF regarding “dry for wet”, it suggests to me that underwater scenes have to be “sold” to their audience. Since “dry for wet” does not rely on the optical properties of water being substantially different from air. Filters and fog. I don’t know. I’ll come back to this later on, busy week ahead, so probably next weekend. Including fish or a sub with lights…
@David: I’ve looked through glasses of Seven-Up before and have seen bubbles exactly like the ones in the image. I would think, remembering how bubbles look from programs videoed from underwater, there should be more of a break-up to the bubbles as they rise. Like each bubble has several children huddled around them. I don’t really get an in the water feel from this image.
Fantastic work, David. Am constantly in admiration of your Bryce knowledge, and intelligent use thereof, to rapidly develop convincing techniques.
I can see what the others are saying about the lack of underywateryness, but I think you’re very much on the right track and it’s just early days. Besides, you are trying to achieve the look of Rapture rather than textbook undersea, and Rapture can be quite unreal looking too, at times. The big ripples and big bubbles are taking things in the wrong direction though, I feel.
You are correct about the “selling” of the scene to the audience. For the puppet show “Stingray”, the underwater shots were made on a normal model stage with a very thin aquarium in front of the camera to provide live fish and bubbles. For the unsophisticated junior audience of the 1960s, it was enough. “The Hunt for Red October” was done “dry for wet”, as was the aforementioned “Abyss”. Interestingly, “Das Boot” effects were shot in a tank but they still clouded up the water to increase the apparent scale.
Frustratingly, I was working again this weekend. Really wanted to take a crack at this too. Mind you, at my pace I’d have only managed three bubbles and half a halibut.
@TheSavage64 - your scene convinces me. It does look underwater to me. It’s just that the picture frame is dark, which would be a minor thing to correct.
@Dave: I like the scene, it does have an underwater look to it. Like the first image you posted. But have a question. I like the hazy look of the dome and background buildings, but shouldn’t the foreground buildings be as hazy as the sub(?) on the left? I would also think the transport tube(?) would have a hazy appearance until it came closer to the viewer.
@Dave: I like the scene, it does have an underwater look to it. Like the first image you posted. But have a question. I like the hazy look of the dome and background buildings, but shouldn’t the foreground buildings be as hazy and the sub(?) on the left? I would also think the transport tube(?) would have a hazy appearance until it came closer to the viewer.
I don’t think so because it depends on the murkiness of the water and the size of the scene.
OK. I’ve been having a bit of a tinker with this and a think. Thank you PJF for your kind remarks and comments, Dave for the example provided and the further prompting, mostly from Horo.
So… I’ve been using google images and having a bit of a look at real underwater images. What is most striking is perhaps the almost total absence of red and, by contrast the over saturation of blues and greens. Also, it seems that underwater world DOF is very strong. I don’t know if this is down to some optical property of the water or the lenses used for underwater photography or some combination of the two. But I’ve noted that many underwater photo’s look like miniaturised scenes. Something I usually try to avoid in my renders, but in this case, it is genuine. Finally, most underwater scenes are lost in murky blueness after quite a short distance - the chances of observing an entire city seem to be slim. So with this in mind I’ve had a bit of a play.
@David: I think the first render is the direction to go for underwater scenes. Especially with structures. Though I know what’s being done, there isn’t that total feeling that this is an image of something underwater. I’ve seen foggy days that give similar affects. Perhaps not the color, but the murkiness.
@David: I think the first render is the direction to go for underwater scenes. Especially with structures. Though I know what’s being done, there isn’t that total feeling that this is an image of something underwater. I’ve seen foggy days that give similar affects. Perhaps not the color, but the murkiness.
But at least fog does not make things go out of focus! I think to find some way of introducing some intervening layers of suspended murk may help? If I have time later…
@David: No, I think you’ve got the murk correct. What’s missing is the variation of light that would be coming from the surface due to wave action. If you look into a swimming pool on a bright sunny day, you will see how the light motion of the surface causes different patterns on the bottom of the pool.
This same thing is going to happen in the ocean, but not to the same intensity as a clean pool. If you watch any programs filmed underwater, there are rays(?) always present if its been filmed during bright sunny days. It’s like the light is dancing underwater. To me, that’s whats missing in your latest render.
, but I don’t get an underwater city feel to any of them. 
