Show Us Your Bryce Renders! Part 3

191012141550

Comments

  • eireann.sgeireann.sg Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    Although this did not take 5 min but it was so simple to do once I understood what stacking meant and the materials available in the material lab. Thanks Rareth.

    great job, see a little outside the box thinking and you open up a whole new world with Bryce.

    Thanks. It's the help we newbies get from the experienced Brycers that opens the various doors to wonderland. :-)


    @ GussNemo - thanks, the foundation is solid, I think the angle of the camera caused the distortion, learning by trial and error. ;-)You dont really get lens distortion when you render with Bryce.
    You get that only with real cameras plus real lenses. The cheaper the lens the more distortion.

  • mermaid010mermaid010 Posts: 3,311
    edited December 1969

    You dont really get lens distortion when you render with Bryce.
    You get that only with real cameras plus real lenses. The cheaper the lens the more distortion.

    Then I don't know what caused the tilt, maybe someone else has a better idea. in the meantime let's call it the new learning tower of pisa. ;-)

  • eireann.sgeireann.sg Posts: 0
    edited January 2013

    You dont really get lens distortion when you render with Bryce.
    You get that only with real cameras plus real lenses. The cheaper the lens the more distortion.

    Then I don't know what caused the tilt, maybe someone else has a better idea. in the meantime let's call it the new learning tower of pisa. ;-) The tilt is no distortion, thats whats further away from the lens.
    If you increase the focal length and put the camera further away, that improves the falling lines.
    In the past when taking photographs you could also use shift lenses.
    Nowadays you can use Photoshop to correct that.
    With Bryce at least the lines are straight. With real cameras and lenses you can get curved lines, too. Thats distortion.

    Even if you look at a tower, whats further away looks smaller. Its just more obvious when you put it onto a computer screen.
    Same scene different camera angle


    Press "1", go further away and then press the magnifying glass ...bottom right corner area.

    a2.jpg
    1000 x 750 - 48K
    a1.jpg
    1000 x 750 - 55K
    Post edited by eireann.sg on
  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    well I turned the Leaning Tower of Pisa wip into a temple.. which since this is DAZ, lent itself to the following picture

    But, but, but she's not naked! It's NVIATWAS not VIATWAS :)

  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @mermaid: I'm still in the trial and error phase, or is that error and lots of trials? I know more than I did, but need to know more. Sounds like a catch 22 situation.

    @Eireann: When I did the closeup of my temple, I increased the FOV to 90, to try and capture more of the surrounding area. After it rendered I saw that the left front pillar looked like it had bent. Changing the FOV back to 60 took care of that particular problem. In your example, the building is centered in the screen. So any distortion would be as you've shown in the first image. Would it be the same if the building were shifted left or right? I also see the distortion in the first image can give the impression of great height if played against shorter objects. BTW, that is a nice looking building.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    well I turned the Leaning Tower of Pisa wip into a temple.. which since this is DAZ, lent itself to the following picture

    But, but, but she's not naked! It's NVIATWAS not VIATWAS :)

    its NNviatwas, as in nearly naked... she's got nothing on under that loin cloth..

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    Rareth said:
    well I turned the Leaning Tower of Pisa wip into a temple.. which since this is DAZ, lent itself to the following picture

    But, but, but she's not naked! It's NVIATWAS not VIATWAS :)

    its NNviatwas, as in nearly naked... she's got nothing on under that loin cloth..

    Well originally it was NVIATWAS but I guess now a days with Daz worrying more about nudity it had to be adjusted to NNVIATWAS?

  • JamahoneyJamahoney Posts: 1,789
    edited December 1969

    Thanks to GabrielMoreau’s refractive method mentioned sometime back (in this thread), the abstract possibilities when playing around with additional primitives are endless. Liked this one best - fits, sort of, to material currently reading.

    Title: Approaching Zero

    Jay

    aproach-zero.jpg
    596 x 1200 - 732K
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Jamahoney said:
    Thanks to GabrielMoreau’s refractive method mentioned sometime back (in this thread), the abstract possibilities when playing around with additional primitives are endless. Liked this one best - fits, sort of, to material currently reading.

    Title: Approaching Zero

    Jay

    Wow if you don't tweak the phase discriminator and boost the particle flow your Heisenberg compensator is going to blow.

  • JamahoneyJamahoney Posts: 1,789
    edited December 1969

    Wow if you don’t tweak the phase discriminator and boost the particle flow your Heisenberg compensator is going to blow.

    Oooooppps, too late....KABOOOM ;)

  • eireann.sgeireann.sg Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    GussNemo said:

    @Eireann: When I did the closeup of my temple, I increased the FOV to 90, to try and capture more of the surrounding area. After it rendered I saw that the left front pillar looked like it had bent. Changing the FOV back to 60 took care of that particular problem. In your example, the building is centered in the screen. So any distortion would be as you've shown in the first image. Would it be the same if the building were shifted left or right? I also see the distortion in the first image can give the impression of great height if played against shorter objects. BTW, that is a nice looking building.
    The bent lines usually come from lousy lenses. I dont know why there should be prominent bent lines when you render with Bryce and a FOV of 90.
    Just use a FOV of 20 or 30 and nothing will look like collapsing any more. You can show just as much with a narrow FOV you only have to place your virtual camera further away.
    In real life you cant always do that. So, you need wide angle lenses that give you falling lines.
  • cjreynoldscjreynolds Posts: 155
    edited December 1969

    Still going through my backup disks - ran across some more old renders, these from a temple-sort-of-thing I did in ver. 4. All done in Bryce with primitives and booleans.

    Tower_Fly-thru_3.jpg
    1120 x 866 - 84K
    Tower_Fly-thru_2.jpg
    1120 x 866 - 144K
  • cjreynoldscjreynolds Posts: 155
    edited January 2013

    For some reason it only let me attach two images to that last one. Here are the other two.

    Tower4.jpg
    1120 x 866 - 523K
    Tower2.jpg
    1120 x 866 - 460K
    Post edited by cjreynolds on
  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @Jay: Interesting image. Love the color.

    @cj: Those are really cool looking. I get the impression of being up in the clouds. A floating city perhaps? Nice job.

  • mermaid010mermaid010 Posts: 3,311
    edited January 2013

    @ Eireann - I will try what you suggested low FOV and then zoom in. Thanks

    @ GussNemo - more errors or more trials - everyday we learn something new. ;-)

    @ Jay - cool abstract

    @ CjReynolds - awesome, now I am inspired to try the temple too from Robin Wood's tutorials. GussNemo has done a great job with the temple from that tutorial.

    Post edited by mermaid010 on
  • eireann.sgeireann.sg Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @ Eireann - I will try what you suggested low FOV and then zoom in. Thanks

    @ GussNemo - more errors or more trials - everyday we learn something new. ;-)

    @ Jay - cool abstract

    @ CjReynolds - awesome, now I am inspired to try the temple too from Robin Wood's tutorials. GussNemo has done a great job with the temple from that tutorial.

    low FOV and then zoom OUT.
    lowering the FOV is like zooming in.
    Lower the FOW and then press the "-" magnifying glass.
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,535
    edited December 1969

    For some reason it only let me attach two images to that last one. Here are the other two.

    Make sure you click preview post in between attaching images.

  • JamahoneyJamahoney Posts: 1,789
    edited December 1969

    As always, thanks Guss and Mermaid...the best thing about abstracts is that they can be quite surprising, they're quick and easy, and you can apply any title to them :)

    Cjrenolds....great architectural works. For my eye, there's too much marble of the same colour, but that's not a problem as you can always apply changes in materials to define and enhance areas more.

    Jay

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    there is always the Leaning Tower of Pisa tutorial

    http://www.mulawa.net/special/pisa/index.html

  • mx42bmx42b Posts: 25
    edited December 1969

    I've been experimenting with Mr. Brinnen's wonderfull volumetric fire material recently and just today discovered that poser 9 came with a mech. I hope you like this one.

    Thearrival.png
    753 x 560 - 712K
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    mx42b said:
    I've been experimenting with Mr. Brinnen's wonderfull volumetric fire material recently and just today discovered that poser 9 came with a mech. I hope you like this one.

    oh now thats Cool! great job..

  • dwseldwsel Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @cjreynolds, @Rareth:
    I really like architecture that's lately appearing in wide range of forms on this forum :)

    @cjreynolds:
    Here are my another tries on this kind of glass:
    - *glass_3.png - straight out of Bryce
    - *glass_g_3.png - with some fancy RGB compositing and incidence ramp changing colours slightly

    @GussNemo;
    That's a great improvement already about the background! There are two things - a really minor tweaks I might suggest to make significant change in overal image look:
    - In the top left corner there's a very little patch of visible sky that takes my attention away from the main theme. Just a minor slide of the mountain or the camera would hide it so you'd have fully solid wall behind your temple.
    - I see a signs that your temple uses 'object space' mapping type of marble texture, thus repetitions can be seen. In reality it's more likely that columns would be built from greater size of marble block, so I think that 'world scale' mapping type would be more appropriate in this case.

    14_test_scene_carn_glass_3.png
    300 x 400 - 221K
    14_test_scene_carn_glass_g_3.png
    300 x 400 - 235K
  • Miss BMiss B Posts: 3,070
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    there is always the Leaning Tower of Pisa tutorial

    http://www.mulawa.net/special/pisa/index.html


    Oh I'm going to have to try that one. It looks pretty realistic.
  • StuartBStuartB Posts: 596
    edited December 1969

    Gonna need a bigger bucket.
    Made the bucket in Bryce but the terminator, skeletons and skulls I found on the net
    a couple of years ago. Can't remember where but never used them until now.

    Bigger_Bucket.jpg
    800 x 600 - 440K
  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @dwsel: Thank you very much for the suggestions. I used the mountain on the left to block that area, which does look better. I'm still fiddling with the mapping though. Stumbled upon an interesting result in the process. Not sure how I got there, but I think it looks nice.

    @Stuart: Like what you've done in that image. Has a real nice mood to it.

  • mermaid010mermaid010 Posts: 3,311
    edited December 1969

    @ Eireann - I will try what you suggested low FOV and then zoom in. Thanks

    low FOV and then zoom OUT.
    lowering the FOV is like zooming in.
    Lower the FOW and then press the "-" magnifying glass.

    Sorry I meant zoom OUT lol

  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,133
    edited December 1969

    Just to let you know, I've not been idling my time away (not entirely), I've been working on more video tutorials. And I thought I might share with you an little discovery I made during the course of a recent tutorial.

    On the same test scene.

    Soft shadows rendered with Super Fine art AA - 16 Rays Per Pixel, 24 minutes
    Soft shadows rendered with Premium effects - 16 Rays Per Pixel, 14 seconds

    That's quite a big difference. So, on the strength of this observation, I would strongly recommend that if you are thinking of using Super Fine art AA - don't - use Premium effects instead and save yourself a lot of render time.

    I redid the test twice, I was so surprised at the difference in render times.

    Worth knowing?

    In this case, Premium effects was over 100x faster than Super Fine art AA, for the same RPP settings!

  • Electro-ElvisElectro-Elvis Posts: 689
    edited December 1969

    @mx42b: Nice effect. Your scene is very dynamic.

    @GussNemo: Your little temple is well modelled.

    @dwsel: Quiet pretty colors anyway, works well on your "thingy"

    @StuartB4: Very convincing mud.

    Yesterday I experimented a bit with the instancing lab (I read a bit the thread here). I think IL works quiet well with trees, e.g. for a little grove. On the basis of a single tree, IL generates quiet easily different shapes and sizes.
    I needed just about half an hour to throw my scene together (of course the ground under trees could need a bit of work). In contrast to the short time I build the scene was the render time. About 10 hours including Anti-Aliasing ;-)

    hain800x600.jpg
    798 x 585 - 166K
  • Miss BMiss B Posts: 3,070
    edited December 1969

    . . . on the strength of this observation, I would strongly recommend that if you are thinking of using Super Fine art AA - don't - use Premium effects instead and save yourself a lot of render time.
    Definitely something to make note of. Thanks David.


    Yesterday I experimented a bit with the instancing lab (I read a bit the thread here). I think IL works quiet well with trees, e.g. for a little grove. On the basis of a single tree, IL generates quiet easily different shapes and sizes.
    I needed just about half an hour to throw my scene together (of course the ground under trees could need a bit of work). In contrast to the short time I build the scene was the render time. About 10 hours including Anti-Aliasing ;-)


    I like the way your little grove of trees came out. :-)
  • eireann.sgeireann.sg Posts: 0
    edited January 2013

    Just to let you know, I've not been idling my time away (not entirely), I've been working on more video tutorials. And I thought I might share with you an little discovery I made during the course of a recent tutorial.

    On the same test scene.

    Soft shadows rendered with Super Fine art AA - 16 Rays Per Pixel, 24 minutes
    Soft shadows rendered with Premium effects - 16 Rays Per Pixel, 14 seconds

    That's quite a big difference. So, on the strength of this observation, I would strongly recommend that if you are thinking of using Super Fine art AA - don't - use Premium effects instead and save yourself a lot of render time.

    I redid the test twice, I was so surprised at the difference in render times.

    Worth knowing?

    In this case, Premium effects was over 100x faster than Super Fine art AA, for the same RPP settings!

    Ya but, No But, Ya But, No But,

    When you render in Super fine art AA I dont think Bryce takes the rays per pixel into account . at least not correctly.
    Render in super fine art and the shadows look smooth even at 4rpp
    Render in Premium options and 16 rpp give you rather rough shadows.

    Just set the rpp to 4 when rendering in super fine art

    qualities.jpg
    436 x 600 - 39K
    Post edited by eireann.sg on
This discussion has been closed.