Loading...
> >

Show Us Your Iray Renders. Part VI

1…5657596162…100

Comments

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,159

    ...interesting that the smoke didn't produce a shadow, that was why I thought it was postworked.

  • reelyorreelyor Posts: 237

    Genesis 8 using UltraHD IRAY HDRI with DOF - Pines Beach. No camera DOF. This product is amazing. Several clicks to test the program, then this popped up. 16000 resolution.

    BEACH HAT 1.jpg
    1080 x 608 - 437K
  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 9,479
    edited September 2017
    kyoto kid said:

    ...interesting that the smoke didn't produce a shadow, that was why I thought it was postworked.

    I hadn't noticed the lack of a shadow. There's probably no shadow because getting the wispy smoke look has the surface set to .15 (15/100ths) Cutout Opacity.

    Post edited by L'Adair on
  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:

    Blasé

    Nice one! The new OOT hair is the most realistic one I've seen yet, I think.

    BTW, you should set the width to max 800 (otherwise the mods will do it for you, unsolicited lol).

    As for the image properties, width is set to 100%. That way, if someone is viewing on a smart phone, it will size down to match, and in the actual thread, it will never display wiider than 800 pixels. Of course, when it comes up in the comment editor, if you go full screen to edit, it will also size up! Now if we could only get the magicians who support the forum software to hard-code a "max-width=800px" into the Image Properties... lol

    Actually it's 1150 pixel in both IE, Chrome and Firefox in the actual thread. Maybe it depends on screen resolution (mine is 1920x1080).

  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 9,479
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:

    Blasé

    Nice one! The new OOT hair is the most realistic one I've seen yet, I think.

    BTW, you should set the width to max 800 (otherwise the mods will do it for you, unsolicited lol).

    As for the image properties, width is set to 100%. That way, if someone is viewing on a smart phone, it will size down to match, and in the actual thread, it will never display wiider than 800 pixels. Of course, when it comes up in the comment editor, if you go full screen to edit, it will also size up! Now if we could only get the magicians who support the forum software to hard-code a "max-width=800px" into the Image Properties... lol

    Actually it's 1150 pixel in both IE, Chrome and Firefox in the actual thread. Maybe it depends on screen resolution (mine is 1920x1080).

    Interesting. My screen resolution is 1920x1080. When I view Firefox full screen, the forum thread is still contrained to a width where 800px is the widest the image shows... well, bugger. Looks like that's changed. Guess I'll have to redo all my images posts for the past month or so.
    sad

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    edited September 2017
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:

    Blasé

    Nice one! The new OOT hair is the most realistic one I've seen yet, I think.

    BTW, you should set the width to max 800 (otherwise the mods will do it for you, unsolicited lol).

    As for the image properties, width is set to 100%. That way, if someone is viewing on a smart phone, it will size down to match, and in the actual thread, it will never display wiider than 800 pixels. Of course, when it comes up in the comment editor, if you go full screen to edit, it will also size up! Now if we could only get the magicians who support the forum software to hard-code a "max-width=800px" into the Image Properties... lol

    Actually it's 1150 pixel in both IE, Chrome and Firefox in the actual thread. Maybe it depends on screen resolution (mine is 1920x1080).

    Interesting. My screen resolution is 1920x1080. When I view Firefox full screen, the forum thread is still contrained to a width where 800px is the widest the image shows... well, bugger. Looks like that's changed. Guess I'll have to redo all my images posts for the past month or so.
    sad

    The mods probably already have done it. At least I haven't seen any oversized pics here or anywhere else in the forum for a long time. But of course, if it's a forum change that has caused it, it will probably have retroactive effect.

     

     

    Post edited by Taoz on
  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 9,479
    edited September 2017
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:

    Blasé

    Nice one! The new OOT hair is the most realistic one I've seen yet, I think.

    BTW, you should set the width to max 800 (otherwise the mods will do it for you, unsolicited lol).

    As for the image properties, width is set to 100%. That way, if someone is viewing on a smart phone, it will size down to match, and in the actual thread, it will never display wiider than 800 pixels. Of course, when it comes up in the comment editor, if you go full screen to edit, it will also size up! Now if we could only get the magicians who support the forum software to hard-code a "max-width=800px" into the Image Properties... lol

    Actually it's 1150 pixel in both IE, Chrome and Firefox in the actual thread. Maybe it depends on screen resolution (mine is 1920x1080).

    Interesting. My screen resolution is 1920x1080. When I view Firefox full screen, the forum thread is still contrained to a width where 800px is the widest the image shows... well, bugger. Looks like that's changed. Guess I'll have to redo all my images posts for the past month or so.
    sad

    The mods probably already have done it. At least I haven't seen any oversized pics here or anywhere else in the forum for a long time. But of course, if it's a forum change that has caused it, it will probably have retroactive effect.

    I was referring to the fact the width of the forum thread display is no longer constrained as it has been. In the past, if I opened the browser full screen, the content still wasn't any wider than it is with the browser covering a little more than half the width of the screen. That's no longer the case. It widens to about 1.5 times the width it used to. So of course, those images set to 100% end up displaying close to 1200 pixels wide. I changed all I could find. Some I expected to need fixing were at 800, so probably "fixed" by the mods.

    Post edited by L'Adair on
  • nohiznguyennohiznguyen Posts: 263
    edited September 2017

    Portrait 15

    My "Eye Candy" head morph for Lee 7 smiley

    d042a1.jpg
    1080 x 864 - 382K
    Post edited by nohiznguyen on
  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,766

    And... Here are a couple more renders playing with volumetric effects.  
    Plus... I think that I found the memory bandwidth bottleneck on my GTX 1060 card.  When I tried rendering the Urban Future scene (the second render) using just the GPU, the itterations went very slow and the GPU temperature never went up much past idle temp (and I know it was GPU because the CPU as chilling at idle).  This tells me that it was waiting on the VRAM, probably because of how big the volumetric atmosphere was combined with all of the lights in the scene.  

    This image has been resized to fit in the page. Click to enlarge.


  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    nohiznguyen said:

    Portrait 15

    My "Eye Candy" head morph for Lee 7 smiley

    Very attractive morph. yes

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    edited September 2017
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:
    Taoz said:
    L'Adair said:

    Blasé

    Nice one! The new OOT hair is the most realistic one I've seen yet, I think.

    BTW, you should set the width to max 800 (otherwise the mods will do it for you, unsolicited lol).

    As for the image properties, width is set to 100%. That way, if someone is viewing on a smart phone, it will size down to match, and in the actual thread, it will never display wiider than 800 pixels. Of course, when it comes up in the comment editor, if you go full screen to edit, it will also size up! Now if we could only get the magicians who support the forum software to hard-code a "max-width=800px" into the Image Properties... lol

    Actually it's 1150 pixel in both IE, Chrome and Firefox in the actual thread. Maybe it depends on screen resolution (mine is 1920x1080).

    Interesting. My screen resolution is 1920x1080. When I view Firefox full screen, the forum thread is still contrained to a width where 800px is the widest the image shows... well, bugger. Looks like that's changed. Guess I'll have to redo all my images posts for the past month or so.
    sad

    The mods probably already have done it. At least I haven't seen any oversized pics here or anywhere else in the forum for a long time. But of course, if it's a forum change that has caused it, it will probably have retroactive effect.

    I was referring to the fact the width of the forum thread display is no longer constrained as it has been. In the past, if I opened the browser full screen, the content still wasn't any wider than it is with the browser covering a little more than half the width of the screen. That's no longer the case. It widens to about 1.5 times the width it used to. So of course, those images set to 100% end up displaying close to 1200 pixels wide. I changed all I could find. Some I expected to need fixing were at 800, so probably "fixed" by the mods.

    Hm, yes now that you say it, looks like the width of the forum pages has changed. I always view the forum full screen but have a permanent sidebar in my browser so the change hasn't been so noticable that I, well, noticed it, before now.

    Post edited by Taoz on
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    Personally I think 800px is fine, at least for 1920x1080 resolution, where you usually can see the whole picture without scrolling the page.

  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,766
    Taoz said:
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    Personally I think 800px is fine, at least for 1920x1080 resolution, where you usually can see the whole picture without scrolling the page.

    I run my screen in 4k (3840x2160) but I only have my browser taking half of the screen, so the 800px wide thing doesn't bug me at all.

    Back to the renders!
    Here's a Render that I did of Urban Future 5 using only it's built in lights and a cube full of volumetric haze.

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    JamesJAB said:
    Taoz said:
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    Personally I think 800px is fine, at least for 1920x1080 resolution, where you usually can see the whole picture without scrolling the page.

    I run my screen in 4k (3840x2160) but I only have my browser taking half of the screen, so the 800px wide thing doesn't bug me at all.

    Back to the renders!
    Here's a Render that I did of Urban Future 5 using only it's built in lights and a cube full of volumetric haze.

    Looks great! Never tried to play with fog yet.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    Taoz said:
    JamesJAB said:
    Taoz said:
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    Personally I think 800px is fine, at least for 1920x1080 resolution, where you usually can see the whole picture without scrolling the page.

    I run my screen in 4k (3840x2160) but I only have my browser taking half of the screen, so the 800px wide thing doesn't bug me at all.

    Back to the renders!
    Here's a Render that I did of Urban Future 5 using only it's built in lights and a cube full of volumetric haze.

    Looks great! Never tried to play with fog yet.

    Yeah the haze looks amazing.
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 15,100

    Haze really adds a lot to a render... but it adds considerably to render time.

    You can sometimes do it in post with a distance canvas, but the effect on lighting is subtly missing 

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307

    Fog versus haze - had to look it up. Actually the steam in the above render seems to qualify as fog or even thick fog, rather than haze:

    "There is a  WMO meteorological definition of haze that the visibility should be between 1 kilometer and about 10kilometers but the relative humidity must be less than 95%.If the relative humidity is more than 95% in this distance range it is classified as mist.

    Fog is where visibility is less than 1km, thick fog less than 100metres and very thick fog less than 10 metres. There is little need to specify humidity here, in normal conditions,because as fog thickens the relative humidity rapidly approaches 100%."

    https://www.quora.com/Difference-between-fog-and-haze

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 15,100

    I've always loved the Enchanted Forest environment. Here it is, yet again translated to Iray...

    The big tricky bit was adding translucence to all the leaves to enhance the look.

     

    Enchanted Forest Iray.jpg
    1080 x 1080 - 804K
  • L'AdairL'Adair Posts: 9,479
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    CSS can be used to dynamically control the image sizes, so they size down to fit the device. It's actually why I was setting my images to 100%, so the full image would fill the width of the viewing device, even if it was 4.5" smart phone screen. Adding "max-width: 800px;" to the CSS for forum images should force larger images to display at 800px.

  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,766
    edited September 2017
    L'Adair said:
    Chohole said:

    I often think that is ironic that now we have a chance to add images at larger sizes we still have to edit them back to 800px to cater fo all the different devices that people use to browze the forums. 

    CSS can be used to dynamically control the image sizes, so they size down to fit the device. It's actually why I was setting my images to 100%, so the full image would fill the width of the viewing device, even if it was 4.5" smart phone screen. Adding "max-width: 800px;" to the CSS for forum images should force larger images to display at 800px.

    Unfortunately when viewing this forum on mobile devices, (does it on both my phone and tablet in portrait orientation) when the width of the screen doesn't have enough pixels...
    Images get horizontaly squished, but keep the correct vertical size (odd thing is it does not happen on all images).  This issue happens even when requesting the desktop version of the site.

    Post edited by JamesJAB on
  • FSMCDesignsFSMCDesigns Posts: 12,852
    edited September 2017

    Tried to create a sexy pirate queen without going all halloween costume on it like so many female pirate outfits in the stores, LOL

     

    piratelass.jpg
    1314 x 1072 - 2M
    Post edited by FSMCDesigns on
  • Robert FreiseRobert Freise Posts: 4,636

    Very nice Pirate give her red hair and she could be Grace O'Mally

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,618

    Elon Musk's Worst Nighmare.

    Musk's Worst Nightmare by tkdrobert

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,618

    Opps signed the wrong date, it should be 9/8/17.

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    timmins.william said:

    I've always loved the Enchanted Forest environment. Here it is, yet again translated to Iray...

    The big tricky bit was adding translucence to all the leaves to enhance the look.

    Looks good.

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,307
    edited September 2017

    Funny creature that was hiding somewhere in the DAZ store.

     

     

     

    aardvark_01.jpg
    1463 x 1070 - 910K
    Post edited by Taoz on
  • BobvanBobvan Posts: 2,653

    Nother..

    45.png
    1860 x 950 - 2M
  • GlennFGlennF Posts: 143
    FSMCDesigns said:

    Like It.

    to create a sexy pirate queen without going all halloween costume on it like so many female pirate outfits in the stores, LOL

     

     

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513

    Sundress

    image

    There are a couple mistakes here but I had a hell of a lot of fun. This is my first time creating anything in MD.

    sundresscrop.png
    602 x 803 - 577K
This discussion has been closed.