Make Your Most Realistic Renders – Ever!

1356720

Comments

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 16,585
    edited December 1969

    Excellent! Check those eye reflections, eh? Kickin'!
    I like her. Very cool character you've got going on!

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Magaremoto and I (amongst others) where just discussing how difficult hair can be - primarily getting nice highlights like that. Did you post the hair? Wow! Beautiful!

    Thanks for your feedback. The hair itself is my Skye Hair available in the store. The Studio pack would include my render settings, various lighting setups, etc. including for getting hair highlights. Simply load in your character and render!

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    PhilW said:
    So this is my second render i've ever made with Carrara 8.5 Pro beta after finding out how things work and how i get the textures work well.

    It's with gamma correction of 2.2, sky light and indirect light, i don't have a picture without gamma correction but i am rendering a close shot of the face and later with some other HDRI images

    just see that there is no shadow on the ground, i will try to add some :)

    Yes, one of the reasons I suggested an upper body shot is that there is no ground shadow, unless you put in a ground plane (which could be a shadow catcher, but the last time I tried, that doesn't work with GI! Your render looks good but there is quite a strong light - do you still have the default light in the scene? If so, if you turn it down I think it will improve the overall image.

    I was trying to add a shadow like in the training video but it didnt worked somehow as you said it doesnt seem to work with GI, so i have to try about something else.

    I still have the normal light in the scene but turned down the brightness to 0%, could that maybe be an effect of the HDRI image? As it said Sunny scene, i also have one for night and i've made two for sunset now

    OK, the default light at 0% won't affect anything. It's just the strong sunlight in the HDRI. I like your recent posts even more, great shadow and detail on the wings! Photographers call the hour around sunrise and sunset the "Golden Hour" for the beautiful warm light and these look to be around that time.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 16,585
    edited December 1969

    That would be perfect (your studio). You know - the hair that came with the Advanced Techniques is so good that I haven't used any others. I'll have to get those from your store now. Why haven't I done that yet? (smacks himself in the forehead)

    On a side note, I can't wait for you to hear some of the great music I've written so far for my movie! Just as exciting as I was hoping for - and more exciting than I was expecting! And in music - I'm a bit on the picky side when it's my own endeavors in question.

  • Chris Fox ArtChris Fox Art Posts: 330
    edited July 2013

    PhilW said:
    PhilW said:
    So this is my second render i've ever made with Carrara 8.5 Pro beta after finding out how things work and how i get the textures work well.

    It's with gamma correction of 2.2, sky light and indirect light, i don't have a picture without gamma correction but i am rendering a close shot of the face and later with some other HDRI images

    just see that there is no shadow on the ground, i will try to add some :)

    Yes, one of the reasons I suggested an upper body shot is that there is no ground shadow, unless you put in a ground plane (which could be a shadow catcher, but the last time I tried, that doesn't work with GI! Your render looks good but there is quite a strong light - do you still have the default light in the scene? If so, if you turn it down I think it will improve the overall image.

    I was trying to add a shadow like in the training video but it didnt worked somehow as you said it doesnt seem to work with GI, so i have to try about something else.

    I still have the normal light in the scene but turned down the brightness to 0%, could that maybe be an effect of the HDRI image? As it said Sunny scene, i also have one for night and i've made two for sunset now

    OK, the default light at 0% won't affect anything. It's just the strong sunlight in the HDRI. I like your recent posts even more, great shadow and detail on the wings! Photographers call the hour around sunrise and sunset the "Golden Hour" for the beautiful warm light and these look to be around that time.

    thanks a lot for your feedback! :)
    A portrait studio would be pretty awesome as i always loved to make Portraits with DS and Photoshop as you can see in the pictures i'll uploading now (can't wait to use them in carrara for realistic renders with gamma correction, maybe i'll make a scene with more than 1 character)

    i just saw the skye hair and some more that's getting to my wishlist now :)

    (Characters are Cara Joy on the top and Daiana on the second image, they are a part of a book/story i am writing and or doing some movie if i'm good enough but i'll do pictures of them from carrara today with gamma correction)

    268971_10151674666665996_435157510_n.jpg
    742 x 960 - 142K
    547757_10151619993665996_954847267_n.jpg
    742 x 960 - 75K
    Post edited by Chris Fox Art on
  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    PhilW said:
    PhilW said:
    So this is my second render i've ever made with Carrara 8.5 Pro beta after finding out how things work and how i get the textures work well.

    It's with gamma correction of 2.2, sky light and indirect light, i don't have a picture without gamma correction but i am rendering a close shot of the face and later with some other HDRI images

    just see that there is no shadow on the ground, i will try to add some :)

    Yes, one of the reasons I suggested an upper body shot is that there is no ground shadow, unless you put in a ground plane (which could be a shadow catcher, but the last time I tried, that doesn't work with GI! Your render looks good but there is quite a strong light - do you still have the default light in the scene? If so, if you turn it down I think it will improve the overall image.

    I was trying to add a shadow like in the training video but it didnt worked somehow as you said it doesnt seem to work with GI, so i have to try about something else.

    I still have the normal light in the scene but turned down the brightness to 0%, could that maybe be an effect of the HDRI image? As it said Sunny scene, i also have one for night and i've made two for sunset now

    OK, the default light at 0% won't affect anything. It's just the strong sunlight in the HDRI. I like your recent posts even more, great shadow and detail on the wings! Photographers call the hour around sunrise and sunset the "Golden Hour" for the beautiful warm light and these look to be around that time.

    thanks a lot for your feedback! :)
    A portrait studio would be pretty awesome as i always loved to make Portraits with DS and Photoshop as you can see in the pictures i'll uploading now (can't wait to use them in carrara for realistic renders with gamma correction, maybe i'll make a scene with more than 1 character)

    i just saw the skye hair and some more that's getting to my wishlist now :)

    (Characters are Cara Joy on the top and Daiana on the second image, they are a part of a book/story i am writing and or doing some movie if i'm good enough but i'll do pictures of them from carrara today with gamma correction)

    Great characters - it will be very interesting to see them with gamma correction, I thing they should look even more realistic!

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Sorry to keep adding stuff, I really don't want this thread to be self-promotion, but I thought I would share my latest "gamma" pics as they came out very nicely. I recommend viewing the full image - although the originals were rendered even larger! Still only took around 30 mins each to render.

    SpyCarMontage2000.jpg
    1333 x 2000 - 397K
  • Chris Fox ArtChris Fox Art Posts: 330
    edited December 1969

    that looks very awesome! I also was thinking about making a car or better to say making my cars but i think that will still take a long time until i can do this as i am still at the beginning :\

    But i like the idea to have my own cars in 3d to modefy them in 3d to see how they will look at the end in real if i do some modefications :)

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 11,595
    edited December 1969

    The cars look amazing, Phil. Here is one that I tried with transmapped hair. I had very low hopes for it - almost a lower bound - but I think it did OK for the amount of effort. It took 15 minutes from start to finish, with most of that in the Poser face room. It is just the P8Ryan figure with default texture and the P6James legacy hair.

    Ryan_Villain_HDRI_test.jpg
    1640 x 1230 - 144K
  • Chris Fox ArtChris Fox Art Posts: 330
    edited December 1969

    diomede64 said:
    The cars look amazing, Phil. Here is one that I tried with transmapped hair. I had very low hopes for it - almost a lower bound - but I think it did OK for the amount of effort. It took 15 minutes from start to finish, with most of that in the Poser face room. It is just the P8Ryan figure with default texture and the P6James legacy hair.

    but looks pretty nice! With best render settings it can come out more realistic i think

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    that looks very awesome! I also was thinking about making a car or better to say making my cars but i think that will still take a long time until i can do this as i am still at the beginning :\

    But i like the idea to have my own cars in 3d to modefy them in 3d to see how they will look at the end in real if i do some modefications :)

    A good use of 3D modelling! I wish you luck in your endeavours.

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    diomede64 said:
    The cars look amazing, Phil. Here is one that I tried with transmapped hair. I had very low hopes for it - almost a lower bound - but I think it did OK for the amount of effort. It took 15 minutes from start to finish, with most of that in the Poser face room. It is just the P8Ryan figure with default texture and the P6James legacy hair.

    Looking good! The light is coming from the left, so if you add say a distant light off to the left as well, it will add a bit of contrast and create some highlights. Don't have it too high or it will wash things out - I'd say start at around 30% intensity and see how it goes. You could give it a slight yellow tint as bright sunlight looks yellowish, but don't overdo it. I hope this helps!

  • AriasoAriaso Posts: 155
    edited December 1969

    My modest attempt at it. Wasn't so sure if the Anything Glows lights were Kosher, but they didn't seem to nuke the scene at all. :)

    gammatest2.jpg
    640 x 480 - 60K
  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Ariaso said:
    My modest attempt at it. Wasn't so sure if the Anything Glows lights were Kosher, but they didn't seem to nuke the scene at all. :)

    Getting there but the lighting looks too flat to my eyes. If you have an HDRI with more contrast that would be good, or you could try supplementing the GI with a direct light or two, set to modest intensity?

    If you are using indirect lighting anyway, try using an object with the glow channel set high using the 0-10000% parameter in place of the Anything Glows lights - I think they give better light - just my opinion!

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 16,585
    edited December 1969

    PhilW said:
    Sorry to keep adding stuff, I really don't want this thread to be self-promotion, but I thought I would share my latest "gamma" pics as they came out very nicely. I recommend viewing the full image - although the originals were rendered even larger! Still only took around 30 mins each to render.
    Screw that! Keep Adding Stuff!!!
  • ManStanManStan Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    You got to watch for odd shadows from AG, but it can be used for some nice lighting.

    I had a scene I did with the DH living room being lit by an aquarium using anything glows. it was nice :D I can't get to it right now but the room was lit with just AG on the aquarium and a picture in the glow channel of the flat screen TV. Took forever to render lol

  • Chris Fox ArtChris Fox Art Posts: 330
    edited December 1969

    i first couldnt decide if i should try to make some hair or gamma correction but i choose to do the gamma correction and i think the pictures looks well :)

    So left one is Cara Joy and right one is her best friend Daiana from România :)

    Maybe tomorrow i have to take a look where my Genesis expressions are as i want to add some more emotions to the scene to get it a bit more realistic and not only those model pose pictures

    Cara_si_Daiana_004.jpg
    1920 x 1440 - 2M
    Cara_si_Daiana_003.jpg
    1920 x 1440 - 2M
    Cara_si_Daiana_002.jpg
    1920 x 1440 - 1M
    Cara_si_Daiana_001.jpg
    1920 x 1440 - 1M
  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 16,585
    edited December 1969

    Yes. I'd agree. They look very nice.

  • FenricFenric Posts: 351
    edited December 1969

    Ok, I'm impressed. That is a significant improvement for relatively little cost. Thanks, Phil!

    A19-MysticWylde.jpg
    400 x 800 - 94K
  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Great posts guys! And when the likes of the mighty Fenric give it the thumbs up, I can only be humbled!

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Another example of what I am working on for the Portrait Studio - I like how this turned out! Uses the gamma correction of course. There is a nice warm reflected light under the chin, you would only get this with proper Indirect Lighting.

    FashionFullFinal.jpg
    1600 x 2000 - 451K
  • SockrateaseSockratease Posts: 813
    edited December 1969

    I wanted to try this on a Non-Photoreal render, but Gamma Correction goes away as an option in that mode.

    Shame.

    Now we'll never have Hyper-Real Non-Photoreal images to confuse and confound us...

  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited July 2013

    I wanted to try this on a Non-Photoreal render, but Gamma Correction goes away as an option in that mode.

    Shame.

    Now we'll never have Hyper-Real Non-Photoreal images to confuse and confound us...

    You could always render as photoreal, and then post process, if Hyper-Real Non-Photoreal images are your goal!

    Actually, thinking about it, you can even do this inside of Carrara (I think). Render your photoreal image, and then map it to a plane the same size as the frame and render again as Non-Photoreal, with nothing else in the scene. This second render will be very quick!

    Post edited by PhilW on
  • SockrateaseSockratease Posts: 813
    edited December 1969

    PhilW said:
    I wanted to try this on a Non-Photoreal render, but Gamma Correction goes away as an option in that mode.

    Shame.

    Now we'll never have Hyper-Real Non-Photoreal images to confuse and confound us...

    You could always render as photoreal, and then post process, if Hyper-Real Non-Photoreal images are your goal!

    Actually, thinking about it, you can even do this inside of Carrara (I think). Render your photoreal image, and then map it to a plane the same size as the frame and render again as Non-Photoreal, with nothing else in the scene. This second render will be very quick!

    I've used Carrara that way often by setting images in the backdrop of empty scenes and rendering.

    Works great with fractals!

  • LJWMLJWM Posts: 106
    edited December 1969

    PhilW said:
    It is my personal goal to achieve as realistic renders as possible, and I know that many others share this, but equally I accept that others have different aims and that there is art to be found in all forms of rendering. But Linear Workflow is at the heart of renderers such as Luxrender and Octane and is increasingly being adopted in some form as an option in most high level 3D renderers. So I would recommend at least trying it out, even if you find it does not fit what you want. It is worth giving it a whirl, and it may just knock your eyes out in the same way that it has for me. It is almost too easy to produce consistently great results!
    Well there's that... but I just love having an experiment asked of me - and this really is as simple to set up as you say it is. I started taxing my brain on where I might have an HDR image. Well... you sent at least one with the Advanced Carrara Techniques set, but I opted to try Dimension Theory's Skies of Terra. His presets, I've just discovered, come set up nearly as you've instructed, but with a light or two, and the Gamma (in my example) set at 1.6 - I'm using a night scene. So I am just using the HDRI, No lights in the scene, Sunlight on, Gamma 2.2, Full Indirect, AA = Good, Lighting = Good

    Hi Dark , can you please tell me what hair you used on her render in the post. It's what I've been looking for a bit a while. Thanks loads.

  • GrimmvaldGrimmvald Posts: 12
    edited December 1969

    PhilW -

    Since I didn't ask permission I'll have to ask forgiveness. I haven't done any rendering in a couple of years. I got really interested in photography and have been doing that instead. So I now have a much different perspective on what is "photorealistic". So I'd like to give a hobbyist photographer's input into this topic.

    I really like the model/ render on p. 3. So I used that as a starting point and did editing like I might do on any photo in RAW format. My background photo is an HDR of our favorite "duck pond" in the Seattle area (we've since moved). The render was layered onto the background photo in Elements.

    I hope my effort has some artistic value. My current view is that any model/ render that can be edited and merged into a photograph is realistic enough. If the pic is too bright on your monitor then make a "Levels" correction.

    Since I didn't ask permission to use the render from p. 3, I'll delete my pic if you want.

    If I have any constructive feedback from working thru this project, it's that the highlights in the eyes are too strong. I know how hard the eye highlights are to produce. But I found that they dominated the image enough that they were a distraction.

    I really liked working with your render.

    AmyDentelleSofaCrop-Edit_frame_2_dodge_red.jpg
    1381 x 1152 - 327K
  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited July 2013

    Grimmvald said:
    PhilW -

    Since I didn't ask permission I'll have to ask forgiveness. I haven't done any rendering in a couple of years. I got really interested in photography and have been doing that instead. So I now have a much different perspective on what is "photorealistic". So I'd like to give a hobbyist photographer's input into this topic.

    I really like the model/ render on p. 3. So I used that as a starting point and did editing like I might do on any photo in RAW format. My background photo is an HDR of our favorite "duck pond" in the Seattle area (we've since moved). The render was layered onto the background photo in Elements.

    I hope my effort has some artistic value. My current view is that any model/ render that can be edited and merged into a photograph is realistic enough. If the pic is too bright on your monitor then make a "Levels" correction.

    Since I didn't ask permission to use the render from p. 3, I'll delete my pic if you want.

    If I have any constructive feedback from working thru this project, it's that the highlights in the eyes are too strong. I know how hard the eye highlights are to produce. But I found that they dominated the image enough that they were a distraction.

    I really liked working with your render.

    Hi Grimmvald,

    I really like what you did with this image - no problem at all! (Although if you sell prints and make a million, I want 10%!). Thanks for the feedback regarding highlights, I'll try to be careful! It's amazing how having highlights in the eyes helps "sell" the reality of a character though, without any highlights, there is no life.

    I hope you will be interested in my Portrait Studio project for Carrara that aims to mimic the lighting, backdrop, etc of a traditional photographic studio. Here is another image done with it, I really like the light in this. There is a large softbox type light to the right, mimicking the light through a window, with a lower powered fill light to the left. You probably think the highlights are too much in this too! The background curtain will be part of the set.

    WindowCheongsamFianl.jpg
    1280 x 1600 - 289K
    Post edited by PhilW on
  • PjotterPjotter Posts: 267
    edited December 1969

    Works very nice for me too, using Gamma correction. Thanks.

    But by accident found some more info this in a animation magazine. Gamma encoded is called sRGB. The same results should be accomplished if you use "a linear workflow." It seems with 32 bit images, it will not be gamma encoded as far as I understand. Because of using a "linear workflow" images are less dark and less lighting is required and because of that, increase render time. Maybe the experts can give more detail on this. So far I haven't figured out how to create 32 bit images.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 16,585
    edited December 1969

    Phil is an expert! :)
    Love the above images! Fantastic! I also put time into eyes. I put together some more animations and I'm kind of bummin' that I can't just upload some and show you what's been going on around here! Yikes, it's cool!
    This is a funny frame to see... it's in an animation - and here in this first frame of video, the action has already begun - so her fingers are funny-lookin' and hair looks funny, etc., - but in the animation it looks really cool! This is Gamma 2.2 to an otherwise default filming stage setup I use. This means I can apply this cool technique with no more work to my flow that a check mark and click>type: "2.2" > save! :)

    Rosie_Jog_BG_FC2.jpg
    1280 x 720 - 71K
  • PhilWPhilW Posts: 5,086
    edited December 1969

    Pjotter said:
    Works very nice for me too, using Gamma correction. Thanks.

    But by accident found some more info this in a animation magazine. Gamma encoded is called sRGB. The same results should be accomplished if you use "a linear workflow." It seems with 32 bit images, it will not be gamma encoded as far as I understand. Because of using a "linear workflow" images are less dark and less lighting is required and because of that, increase render time. Maybe the experts can give more detail on this. So far I haven't figured out how to create 32 bit images.

    There's lots that you can read around the web if you want, but don't get too confused by it all - the essence is that if you check the Gamma on at 2.2, Carrara works out the linear workflow stuff "under the hood" and your images come out looking more realistic. No processing overhead, no complex setup, it just works! That is why I can't believe that I didn't hear about it or try it before.

    Nice image, Dart! I will look forward to seeing the full animation!

Sign In or Register to comment.