Post Your Renders - Happy New Year yall

12357100

Comments

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited August 2014


    I notice a cleaner look to the corset material and also less blotchiness on the skin.
    I also notice the high-res bump on the skin showing off its high quality, making it look.. well... touchable!
    Like I told you in private on the previous render, I really like the teeth and inner mouth shaders. The way the light is playing with the inside of her mouth is fantastic and, did you make that expression or did you load it, or both? I just love how natural she looks - expression-wise.
    Okay, while I'm at it, I'd also like to compliment the hair. That is a very nice hair product if you haven't applied post to it.Sure, I can still see that it's a 3d hair model, made up of curved planes with an alpha - granted. But it's very nicely done to allow the viewer to easily forget to notice that!

    Another great render by Mr. Evil Producer!

    Thanks Dart. For what it's worth, I had Carrara do another render while I was at my play read-through with a dialed down reflection on the cornea. I don't know how I missed it, as the eyes are something I usually do first.

    The expression was mine using the morphs++ dials. I did have the eyes pointing at a target helper object, but didn't like the effect, so I again used the morphs++ dials to adjust the eyes.

    The only thing I did to the hair was to modify the highlight/shininess and to add translucency.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited August 2014

    head wax said:
    So, here's the version where I used the saved lower res IR map and increased the Photon accuracy to excellent with a 2 pixel accuracy. The previous setting was Fast with a 2 pixel accuracy. The number of photons was 5000 and the photon map accuracy was 10% with no interpolation. I left those settings the same for both.

    I also increased the AA settings to Good with an object accuracy of 0.5 pixels and a shadow accuracy of 1 pixel.

    I notice a cleaner look to the corset material and also less blotchiness on the skin.

    classic render evil, thanks for explaining the method ! not so sure about that armpit though, scary ;)

    I figured you guys from OZ would like your women a bit stubbly. ;-P If you were from Germany, I would have added dynamic hair to the pits.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    So, here's the version where I used the saved lower res IR map and increased the Photon accuracy to excellent with a 2 pixel accuracy. The previous setting was Fast with a 2 pixel accuracy. The number of photons was 5000 and the photon map accuracy was 10% with no interpolation. I left those settings the same for both.

    I also increased the AA settings to Good with an object accuracy of 0.5 pixels and a shadow accuracy of 1 pixel.

    I notice a cleaner look to the corset material and also less blotchiness on the skin.

    classic render evil, thanks for explaining the method ! not so sure about that armpit though, scary ;)

    I figured you guys from OZ would like your women a bit stubbly. ;-P If you were from Germany, I would have added dynamic hair to the pits.

    :roll:

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    bigh said:

    I figured you guys from OZ would like your women a bit stubbly. ;-P If you were from Germany, I would have added dynamic hair to the pits.

    :roll:
    I ask you, what is the internet for, if not painting other cultures with an overly broad brush of misconceptions? ;-)

    Listen to the Cheesehead. He knows what he's talking about. :coolsmile:

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,634
    edited December 1969

    to be honest, I was surprised when I discovered that 98 percent of men in the states shaved their legs. 'What's wrong with the other 2 percent?' I asked the postman (the postman was the one who told me) .

    He just kind of shrugged, swung his leg back over his kangaroo and hopped off down the street.... ;)

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    to be honest, I was surprised when I discovered that 98 percent of men in the states shaved their legs. 'What's wrong with the other 2 percent?' I asked the postman (the postman was the one who told me) .

    He just kind of shrugged, swung his leg back over his kangaroo and hopped off down the street.... ;)

    That figure is slightly mistaken. How it should read is, 98% of men in the States shave legs, just not their own. I know this, because the postman told me this just before he jumped on his fully automatic hand gun and fired himself down the street towards the school. :P

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,634
    edited December 1969

    Ha ha :) You mean the men in your country shave the other men's legs? Well, I'm kinda surprised by that. But if you admit to it.... who am I to say? In Oz that would get a bit iffy, just saying :)

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    Ha ha :) You mean the men in your country shave the other men's legs? Well, I'm kinda surprised by that. But if you admit to it.... who am I to say? In Oz that would get a bit iffy, just saying :)

    You and the Kiwis seem to have an unnatural fascination with shaving small ruminants. You don't think we look askance at that? ;-P

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 18,335
    edited December 1969

    Just a bit of fun...
    I had a few minutes and an idea. I just used the base scene from Badlands > Realistic Sky, tossed in TheAntFarm's "Never Home" and Kibarreto's "Iron Star", played with the lighting a bit, turned on some clouds, shot a low and quick render, and applied some blurring in Howler.

    IronStarNeverH.jpg
    1280 x 720 - 549K
  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,634
    edited December 1969

    nice sense of movement dart :) and contrast of time periods

    have you thought about putting a small hairless ruminant in somewhere?

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 18,335
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    nice sense of movement dart :) and contrast of time periods

    have you thought about putting a small hairless ruminant in somewhere?

    Hmmmm....
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    nice sense of movement dart :) and contrast of time periods

    have you thought about putting a small hairless ruminant in somewhere?

    Don't you mean small shorn ruminant? ;-)

  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited August 2014

    The objects are positioned on the surface according to the replicated object's hot point. Plant hot points are usually on the very bottom, so if they're on a hillside, it can look like they're not on the surface. To fix this, select the tree, and press Caps Lock on your keyboard. you can now translate the hot point upwards a little. Don't forget to de-activate your Caps Lock button.

    Is this supposed to move the replicated objects above or below the "source object" ?

    I took a terrain, took some pillars (from stonemason's modular ruins set), hit caps lock and moved the hot point above the actual object, floating in the air above it...
    The replicated pillars did not change their vertical position when I hit shuffle or distribute.

    So I moved the hotpoint to float below the object... still no change in where the replicated objects appeared.

    ReplicatorNotSinkingRender.png
    640 x 480 - 42K
    ReplicatorNotSinking.jpg
    640 x 405 - 83K
    Post edited by arcady on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited August 2014

    I would need to see the pillar and it's bounding box. Perhaps there's some issue with the product.

    Using a tree as a reference again, if the tree is selected, the hot point should be at the bottom center of the tree. When placed on a terrain using a surface replicator the hotpoint determines placement. If you were to need the tree to be sunken into the terrain, then you would press caps lock, and move the hotpoint upward into the tree the desired amount. If the tree is already relpicated, you should see them (if mesh or bounding box is used to display the replicants) sink into the terrain.

    I've used this method literally to many times to count.

    Some possible causes for it not working, is that maybe you're moving the hot point of a pillar that is not in the replicator? Maybe the terrain resolution is not the same for the rendered resolution and the preview resolution? Perhaps you're moving the hot point of the surface replicator?

    One other fun fact is that you can make the object in the replicator invisible and the replicated objects will still render.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited December 1969

    Edited above with a screenshot. :)

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited August 2014

    arcady said:
    Edited above with a screenshot. :)

    My net connection is stupid slow right now. I saw the screen shots- Finally! After the page took about a minute to load. :down:

    I think what's happening is that you have your surface replicator parented to your plane. You shouldn't need to do that. The replicated objects become parented to the replicator when you add them, but the actual surface and replicator aren't parented, as the surface can have multiple replicators applied to it.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited August 2014

    I've tried it both ways - replicator parented and not parented. Same result either way.

    Also tried deleting my replicator and making a new one - no change. And this is the second scene I've had this issue in - this scene just being to 'remove everything else that might have been confusing it' and just have a scene with only a replicator.

    Post edited by arcady on
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    Internet is so s-l-o-w-! It's raining here and I'm on a glorified Wi-Fi internet service, so maybe when the weather clears my net connection will speed back up again.

    I'll have to take a peak tomorrow and see what I can come up with as my render is taking longer than anticipated.

  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited August 2014

    SOLVED:

    Its the specific prop...

    Or rather... how I load it into the scene...

    pp2 props - no.
    Daz props - works.
    (or the other way around.)

    I tried a basic cylinder - it worked as you said it should.
    I tried a basic tree - it worked as you said it should.
    I tried one of the trees from the Forest Drive product - it worked as you said it should.
    I tried the road signs from the Forest Drive product - it worked as you said it should.
    I tried it with a G2F figure that I'd imported as an OBJ and saved to my library - it worked as you said it should.

    I grabbed a prop from a different stonemason collection (jungle ruins) - same problem.
    But then I grabbed a barrel from a recent freebie - same problem.

    Maybe its because these are all saved as pp2.'s?

    So then I went to my OTHER daz content folder, and grabbed the 'crate' from this:
    http://www.daz3d.com/free-3d-models-and-content/fantastic-chests

    That object shows in my scene as a crate, with a parent of a crate...

    If I put the whole thing into the replicator - your method works. If I just put the inside crate object into the replicator, I cannot move it up/down with the hotpoint...
    - That seems to indicate that this is related to poser format "props" versus daz format objects, maybe?

    So it the item loads into the scene like this:

    Right now it seems like items from:
    My Daz 3D Library Runtime
    - Consistently fail
    But from:
    My Daz 3D Library
    - Consistently work if they come in as a parent-child same name twice object and I include the whole mess into the replicator.

    But I'm sure I'll find an exception to this because... Carrara and Daz Studio just seem to like messing with each other...

    Post edited by arcady on
  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,634
    edited December 1969

    out of interest , you m0ving the hotpoint of the model or the figure?

  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    out of interest , you m0ving the hotpoint of the model or the figure?

    Maybe the figure?

    Here is the situation where it will work:

    workingreplicatorhotpoints.jpg
    744 x 493 - 101K
  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 18,335
    edited December 1969

    kakman said:
    These are some images that I used for my little travel Blu-Ray disc for a recent trip to Pittsburgh.

    While there we saw the Giants play the Pirates, went to the History Museum, the National Aviary and found a great Tiki bar. These are represented in the Menu background image.

    The “Tavern” image was used as the background for the dining credits.

    The “Moon” image was used for the finale of the credits sequence.

    Very nice! I think it's cool how you use Carrara to help with your expedition Blu-Rays! Awesome!
  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited December 1969

    Just a bit of fun...
    I had a few minutes and an idea. I just used the base scene from Badlands > Realistic Sky, tossed in TheAntFarm's "Never Home" and Kibarreto's "Iron Star", played with the lighting a bit, turned on some clouds, shot a low and quick render, and applied some blurring in Howler.

    That one was really nice - and looked like an oil painting cover to an old science fiction novel.
  • arcadyarcady Posts: 340
    edited December 1969

    Here's a little bit of cheesecake. I used an hdri, the skylight and rendered with an alpha channel and depth pass. I added the background and DOF in Photoshop. I also painted out a bit of a nip slip. :red:

    The first time I saw this last week, it seemed more like a photograph than a render. Its funny how much discussion a 'girl on a pole' image can get - but it was very well rendered. This and Dartan's image both speak very strongly to the power of Carrara.
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    I agree with arcady, Dart, that is a very nice picture! It does feel like an image from an old sci-fi magazine.

    I would have replied to that sooner, but I was to busy implying that Kiwis and Ozzies have an unhealthy infatuation with their wooly, little ruminants. ;-P

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited September 2014

    arcady said:
    Here's a little bit of cheesecake. I used an hdri, the skylight and rendered with an alpha channel and depth pass. I added the background and DOF in Photoshop. I also painted out a bit of a nip slip. :red:

    The first time I saw this last week, it seemed more like a photograph than a render. Its funny how much discussion a 'girl on a pole' image can get - but it was very well rendered. This and Dartan's image both speak very strongly to the power of Carrara.

    Not particularly imaginative I know. I've been following the Luxus threads and the Octane thread, and I wanted to see what I could do. I've never really been into hyper-realism just for realism's sake. While I can appreciate the skill in producing that type of render, the subject matter usually seems pretty mundane. Still, it can be a good skill to have, so once in awhile I'll give one a try. Most end up getting deleted because visually, they're not that interesting to me, or more often, they're a bit embarrassing in some way or another. This one I was actually pretty happy with as the lighting worked, and the pose and expression just came out pretty damn sexy.

    Not all my "realistic" renders are scantily clad women, but it helps. ;-) Seriously though, I never understood the idea of going through hours of work just to render a vase of flowers on a table with a window in the background. Again, I appreciate the skills it takes to set up the shaders, set up the lights and compose the shot, but for me, if I want a picture of flowers in vase on a table with a window in the background, I'll break out my camera and fire up Photoshop. It would be a lot quicker! With a 3D program, you have the universe of your imagination at your fingertips! I would find a still life from the bottom of the sea or on a high mountain top far more visually interesting. Make an alien plant growing in an alien garden or something and then you've really caught my eye.

    Post edited by evilproducer on
  • magaremotomagaremoto Posts: 1,182
    edited December 1969

    25 min render, 3000x resolution

    borgo.jpg
    932 x 400 - 90K
  • JonstarkJonstark Posts: 2,571
    edited December 1969


    I've been following the Luxus threads and the Octane thread, and I wanted to see what I could do. I've never really been into hyper-realism just for realism's sake.

    Yet I've always considered you to have great mastery over realism. When I first was considering getting Carrara, I was heavily influenced by your excellent clip Cirrus City, which I thought was rendered very realistically (well, ok, for a city in the clouds :) and just blew me away with what Carrara can do ) and you have great realism in your renders; the fact that you often take a non-GI approach just validates that in the right hands and with the right skill level, good realism can be achieved in many different approaches, or said another way realism in rendering is not ever simply a matter of settings in the renderer :)

  • JonstarkJonstark Posts: 2,571
    edited December 1969

    25 min render, 3000x resolution

    Beautiful!

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,040
    edited December 1969

    25 min render, 3000x resolution

    Very nice work with that one. Does this one use you AO lighting rig as well?

This discussion has been closed.