Show Us Your Bryce Renders! Part 2

1293032343550

Comments

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    Hope David doesn't mind me cannibalising his render, but I just wanted to show what I meant about making an image look analogue, and in my opinion, improving the realism through naturalisation if that makes any sense.

    One way to help make things look analogue is to soften it, but softening can have benefits both ways. I could have taken David's knives and softened it at the size he rendered it, but here, the softness (or at least some of it) is due to the fact that I've double the size of his render without pixelation and without any special resizing plugins. It's now 1700 pixels wide even though he only had to render half of that. The rest of the effects is just down to personal technique (plugins and manual work), but I can recommend practicing these skills to anyone who want their renders to look more photographic. Remember, when we see a photo, it has always taken on the properties of the lens, the film (or sensor), and chemicals (or codec). If you miss that out of your render, you miss that added element of realism.

    Post-work such as this means your render is still Bryce. David's knives are no less Bryce-Rendered Knives than they were before I laid my filthy hands on them.


    Another reason I wanted to show this is because it's a demonstration of something I wanted to see built-in to Bryce. I wanted a "Development Lab", sort of like a digital darkroom where effects such as this can be controlled with numerous parameters as you view a preview of the render. The Development Lab would effectively be the last point in the workflow (if you wanted to use it), where every 'image-based' parameter is set up, and where you control resolution, AA, Colour Correction, and whatever else would fall under image control.

    Anyway, this one didn't come out too bad, so click to enlarge and then click again to see full size:

    Brinnen_Knives_Analogue.jpg
    1700 x 1700 - 481K
    Post edited by pumeco on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    EDIT: Duplicate.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    Another one, this time Rareth's "Ring" render hopefully made more real, slightly different technique :-)
    I've included the original for comparison.

    Again, you might need to click twice to reach full size:
    .

    ring3.jpg
    1754 x 875 - 525K
    Rareth_Ring_Analogue.jpg
    1754 x 875 - 415K
    Post edited by pumeco on
  • Roland4Roland4 Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    realy wonderfull !

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Cheers Roland, here's yours then.
    A slightly different technique that helps smooth-out the shadows as well:
    .

    silver_torus.jpg
    1514 x 855 - 618K
    Roland_Torus_Analogue.jpg
    1514 x 855 - 485K
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    Another one, this time Rareth's "Ring" render hopefully made more real, slightly different technique :-)
    I've included the original for comparison.

    Again, you might need to click twice to reach full size:
    .

    interesting, not sure about the "more" real, does look out of focus though. and the macro feature on some cameras can be problematic
    your diamond looks better, I would have probably gotten a better picture with mine if I turned the stars off.

    the ring setting and the diamond are a snap to generate in Wings3d, the mats came with Bryce, and the sky setting is the starfield one that came with my copy of Bryce. I might hav spun the sun around 180 degrees and I think I also have a spot like up and to one side pointing at the diamond, but over all a real simple scene. oh and the ground plane is a silk material I found under misc fabrics.

    I probably rendered it with premium setting, 16 rpp, ray depth, 3 soft reflections and soft shadows turned on.

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,357
    edited December 1969

    Just some more basic Bryce modelling.

    Cogs.jpg
    1000 x 500 - 362K
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    @Rareth
    Your ring is a nice render, too nice, which is why I chose it.

    There's not a lens/camera/film on earth could render such a perfect image, so such perfection looks unnatural to us; it's far too clean and perfect. I've just added what Bryce didn't include in the render because it wasn't taken with a real camera; things like Barrel Distortion, Blooming, CA, that sort of thing.

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

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

    Erieann, that little bit of reflection on the top pills render really makes the shot, although I find the reflection-less version somehow more plausible. The Rubic's cube render is excellent. Looks real. Very good light and a nice model too! The green snake thing is likewise well rendered, but not knowing what it is, it's harder to have a view on it's reality.
    Happy you like it.
    I can imagine that it should be very rare to see such pills lying around Horo's lake. Maybe thats why its less realistic LOL.
    Reality? I also got the feeling I am at the edge of losing it :)

    @Horo, yes, you are right, I always compress pics a bit to save space here in the forum.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    @Rareth
    Your ring is a nice render, too nice, which is why I chose it.

    There's not a lens/camera/film on earth could render such a perfect image, so such perfection looks unnatural to us; it's far too clean and perfect. I've just added what Bryce didn't include in the render because it wasn't taken with a real camera; things like Barrel Distortion, Blooming, CA, that sort of thing.

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    Heck my photos are always digital, switched to a digital camera body 8 years ago, and yes with the proper studio set up I could probably duplicate the sharpenss of the ring picture. with a proper studio light setup, bloom and CA are non existant, barrel distortion is minimized by using a 50mm lense or a really expensive macro lense, a tripod and remote trigger release is a must have, although the setting for the shutter to trip 2 sec after pushing the button can work,

    www.dpchallenge.com is one of the digital photog sites I lurk on, these guys do phenomenal work.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 1,325
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    If aberrations are absent from a 3D render it's because they weren't added to the render (by the program or the user). It has nothing to do with analogue vs digital. Clouds and trees and rocks are "analogue", but somehow these are frequently represented in Bryce output, yes?

    Post-editing processes for adding filmic / optical realism are interesting, but perhaps a little out of place in a thread dedicated for users showing their own renders. It would be nice to see images using Bryce techniques that simulate these effects.

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

    Rareth said:
    pumeco said:
    @Rareth
    Your ring is a nice render, too nice, which is why I chose it.

    There's not a lens/camera/film on earth could render such a perfect image, so such perfection looks unnatural to us; it's far too clean and perfect. I've just added what Bryce didn't include in the render because it wasn't taken with a real camera; things like Barrel Distortion, Blooming, CA, that sort of thing.

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    Heck my photos are always digital, switched to a digital camera body 8 years ago, and yes with the proper studio set up I could probably duplicate the sharpenss of the ring picture. with a proper studio light setup,

    www.dpchallenge.com is one of the digital photog sites I lurk on, these guys do phenomenal work. I think if you get one of these ezcubes you could do a good job with your digital camera. You dont need a whole studio.
    There are loads of small affordable devices that allow you to take nice jewelry photos.
    http://www.ezcube.com/

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    pumeco said:
    @Rareth
    Your ring is a nice render, too nice, which is why I chose it.

    There's not a lens/camera/film on earth could render such a perfect image, so such perfection looks unnatural to us; it's far too clean and perfect. I've just added what Bryce didn't include in the render because it wasn't taken with a real camera; things like Barrel Distortion, Blooming, CA, that sort of thing.

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    Heck my photos are always digital, switched to a digital camera body 8 years ago, and yes with the proper studio set up I could probably duplicate the sharpenss of the ring picture. with a proper studio light setup,

    www.dpchallenge.com is one of the digital photog sites I lurk on, these guys do phenomenal work.

    I think if you get one of these ezcubes you could do a good job with your digital camera. You dont need a whole studio.
    There are loads of small affordable devices that allow you to take nice jewelry photos.
    http://www.ezcube.com/

    :) I don't really need even that, white cardboard (non glossy) could do the same trick, and can soften incandecent bulbs with wax paper filters, I've used a similar set up as that ezcube made out of a cardboard box, white construction paper, and glue. lights were 8" reflectors with 75 watt bulbs and various transparent materials for filters. easily done on the cheap.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    what I am working on is creating the jewelry in wings3d/hexagon, setting it up on a display stand of a sort in cararra, and using cararra's physics engine to lay, drape, or hang properly grab a frame that looks right to export into bryce for lighting and render, because I really like how things are turning out in Bryce.

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    @Rareth
    Nope, there's nothing on earth can photograph something so perfect that on a size to size basis it would be as perfect as a render, or if there is, I've never seen it and stand corrected.

    A digital photograph can be razor sharp especially when it's been reduced in size, but at the size it was captured, it can't be as precise as a render. Even that fancy Fuji lens they have floating around in space photographing the planet for Google can't manage it, so I assure you a studio camera can't either.

    Take a look at a satellite map from the worlds finest lens, it's far from perfect, but reduce it in size and it'll be razor-sharp at the expense of detail.

    A raytracer on the other hand will always fit in every amount of detail precisely, based on the distance you set it. No camera can do that no matter how good it is because it will always have a lens and it's sensor technology in the way. A raytracer has no such limit. A raytracer has an infinite amount of detail at it's disposal, it's far superior to any camera, it's pixel-perfect no matter what the distance.

    _ PJF _ said:
    pumeco said:

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    If aberrations are absent from a 3D render it's because they weren't added to the render (by the program or the user). It has nothing to do with analogue vs digital.

    I'd be prepared to humour you if I knew of anywhere where I'd said it had!

    Post-editing processes for adding filmic / optical realism are interesting, but perhaps a little out of place in a thread dedicated for users showing their own renders. It would be nice to see images using Bryce techniques that simulate these effects.
    You don't say?
    Cookie?

    Take a guess why I just processed a few renders to encourage it?

    Go back to sleep, I have no wish for this to turn into another typical Bryce forum thrash-out so I suppose I'd better shut my mouth until I have some of "my own" renders.

    Post edited by pumeco on
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    @Rareth
    Nope, there's nothing on earth can photograph something so perfect that on a size to size basis it would be as perfect as a render, or if there is, I've never seen it and stand corrected.

    A digital photograph can be razor sharp especially when it's been reduced in size, but at the size it was captured, it can't be as precise as a render. Even that fancy Fuji lens they have floating around in space photographing the planet for Google can't manage it, so I assure you a studio camera can't either.

    Take a look at a satellite map from the worlds finest lens, it's far from perfect, but reduce it in size and it'll be razor-sharp at the expense of detail.

    A raytracer on the other hand will always fit in every amount of detail precisely, based on the distance you set it. No camera can do that no matter how good it is because it will always have a lens and it's sensor technology in the way. A raytracer has no such limit. A raytracer has an infinite amount of detail at it's disposal, it's far superior to any camera, it's pixel-perfect no matter what the distance.

    _ PJF _ said:
    pumeco said:

    Those analogue characteristics are what's missing when you do a render because your render is always digital.

    If aberrations are absent from a 3D render it's because they weren't added to the render (by the program or the user). It has nothing to do with analogue vs digital.

    I'd be prepared to humour you if I knew of anywhere where I'd said it had!

    Post-editing processes for adding filmic / optical realism are interesting, but perhaps a little out of place in a thread dedicated for users showing their own renders. It would be nice to see images using Bryce techniques that simulate these effects.


    You don't say?
    Cookie?

    Take a guess why I just processed a few renders to encourage it?

    Go back to sleep, I have no wish for this to turn into another typical Bryce forum thrash-out so I suppose I'd better shut my mouth until I have some of "my own" renders.

    you can make renders look like photographs especially with post work, but it takes alot of work to make a photograph look like a render,
    but I did say in a studio with total control over lighting and surfaces, it is possible to take pictures that are as clear and crisp as a render.

    what is missing in my ring render is DOF, but with what I used for mats, there is nothing in the scene for depth of field ot act on, I already blurred reflections. could I duplicate THAT particular render with a studio. Nope, no stars, could I generate a different render wtih simple lighting and neutral surfaces and duplicate THAT with a camera.. maybe..

    I don't strive for "realism" in Bryce I want things to look good, I'll never get landscape renders like David B does, he is a master,

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Well, whatever techniques and beliefs you have in your art and your equipment, that is what you stick to, but if making the image look analogue isn't your thing, no one is forcing you to do it. It was just a demonstration to encourage experimentation, it's not here to cause an argument or a debate.

    Some will like it and learn it, others will hate it and avoid it.

    Bloody hell.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    pumeco said:
    Well, whatever techniques and beliefs you have in your art and your equipment, that is what you stick to, but if making the image look analogue isn't your thing, no one is forcing you to do it. It was just a demonstration to encourage experimentation, it's not here to cause an argument or a debate.

    Some will like it and learn it, others will hate it and avoid it.

    Bloody hell.

    I don't hate it, you do your thing, I'll do mine, I just disagree with how more "real" a computer generated image is.
    nothing wrong with your images, your take on the knives looked great, almost like an under exposed film image, nothing wrong with it, if that is what you were going for.

    the Ring and Necklace are supposed to be up close macro shots similar to what would be done in a studio, the Analog would have looked alot better (in my opinion) if it had been more subtle, I like where you are going and I get what you are saying, its just that I can't DO realism in bryce yet, still getting the hang of the lighting nuances, in poser I have developed a 3 point light rig that lets me do portait and pinups to my hearts content (pisses off the wife though) in Bryce I am still learning. it has changed ALOT since I last used it in version 5.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    have a new render of that diamond ring in the works, its killing bryce though since I reworked the diamond material some and had to increase the ray depth to make it work,

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,357
    edited December 2012

    Just because sleep is over rated, I decided to take some inspiration from David (again!) and model a knife... (the main difference being that I did mine in Bryce :gulp:).

    So what we have is:

    [edited to add: OK, so I've tried several times to post these pictures in the correct order and this malfunctioning forum is playing silly buggers again, so I'll change the order they are listed in instead) :roll:

    [second edit] I give up!!!! I edited the type in my post and it's now showing the pictures in a different order than it was even though I didn't alter them... work it out for yourselves

    First Picture: Just for Pumeco cos it might shut him up for a while (though I doubt it). :lol:
    Second Picture: Wire frame screen grab to show how bloody complex the geometry was to figure out.
    Third Picture: Bryce render of finished product.

    Now it's nearly 6am [edit: after phaffing around with the picture order, it's now after 6am]... I should go to bed for a few hours.

    BloodyKnife.jpg
    1000 x 500 - 212K
    KnivesWire.jpg
    1001 x 501 - 259K
    2Knives.jpg
    1000 x 500 - 178K
    Post edited by Dave Savage on
  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    @Dave: Those are real nice looking knives. I tried to follow the wireframe but don't understand the purpose of the two large flattened cylinders(?). Or the two smaller ones. Could you explain their purpose?

  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,123
    edited December 2012

    GussNemo said:
    @Dave: Those are real nice looking knives. I tried to follow the wireframe but don't understand the purpose of the two large flattened cylinders(?). Or the two smaller ones. Could you explain their purpose?

    To me it looks like the cylinders are probably responsible for the curves at the end of the blade point along the back and further back? But that's a bit of a guess, I always struggle to figure these things out when it comes to boolean groups and how they look in the wire frame - I quickly get baffled. Which is one of the main reasons I don't attempt many complex scenes.

    Dave, excellent work, as per usual, I'm just sorry that it had to come down to rendering blood on the blade to "pacify" Len.

    Len, I find the post work you've done on the renders quite convincing.

    PJF, Horo and I have been working on simulating some of these postwork effects for our next product, but what with "real" work and other distractions, it's taking us a while to get there. Also, it's difficult. But it is something we've been building on since at least May, so some progress has been made.

    It doesn't help that every time I think I've got to the root of how TA works... I unearth another curious thing. The next video I intend to make will show how TA light can be significantly "amplified" by using a bumpy mirror - which if that sounds pretty crackers, wait till you see it in action. Since it seems to work in a way that breaks all the rules of how surfaces respond to light in Bryce.

    Dwsel, more interesting experiments from you. Here's some more of that rainbow material (close as Horo observed to the oil spill), in another simple render.

    And some more of the knives with less exotic materials applied.

    edge3_4.jpg
    850 x 850 - 455K
    Xyz_metal1.jpg
    850 x 637 - 439K
    Post edited by David Brinnen on
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    another render of that diamond ring

    ring-side.jpg
    1754 x 875 - 593K
  • Rashad Bryce-CarraraRashad Bryce-Carrara Posts: 1,660
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    another render of that diamond ring

    Could be worth exploring a spectral light Dome like the one I used here in Bryce 6 and beta 7

    Diamond Heist
    http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=4053&mode=search

    Chimera
    http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=4213&mode=search

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    another render of that diamond ring

    Could be worth exploring a spectral light Dome like the one I used here in Bryce 6 and beta 7

    Diamond Heist
    http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=4053&mode=search

    Chimera
    http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=4213&mode=search

    now those are damned impressive.

  • Rashad Bryce-CarraraRashad Bryce-Carrara Posts: 1,660
    edited December 1969

    I am stunned many times over with what I see progressing here in this thread. David, Savage64, and the rest of the gang. This thread is magnificent.

    I think the effects Len applied look great. Glad to hear PJF is teamed up with Horo and David that should yield useful fruits.

    Rareth
    The diamonds experiments are going nicely. Thanks for the kudos! The spectral dome ideal I'm proposing is not the only possible means to accomplish the task. But if you want to know about it we can talk.

    So much of the stuff in this thread looks as good or better than it would in Carrara. This isn't to say anything bad about Carrara, but the contrary. Bryce seems to do well with product visualization type renders. Surely there is a professional niche for that.

    I am convinced that Boost Light and TA Optimization brings us much closer to unbiased rendering. Clearly there are still biases but fewer, producing a more accurate result and every bit counts with accuracy.

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,357
    edited December 1969

    GussNemo said:
    @Dave: Those are real nice looking knives. I tried to follow the wireframe but don't understand the purpose of the two large flattened cylinders(?). Or the two smaller ones. Could you explain their purpose?

    Thanks, David is correct, the really large cylinders give the blades their subtle outward curve where the little hole in the blade is (the blade gets slightly wider at that point) and the smaller cylinders give the top edge of the blades their cut out. Then the flattened toruses (tori?) are used to give the curvy sharpness to the otherwise blocky blade shapes at the tips.

    David: If you test it, you'll find it's his blood on the blade.
    Actually, on a more serious note, it could be another material challenge for you to create a convincing blood material.
    I spent hours on that one a few months ago and still am not satisfied that it looks convincing enough.
    I think it comes down to exactly how opaque it needs to be, too much it looks like paint, not enough, it looks like red wine.

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 2,357
    edited December 1969

    So much of the stuff in this thread looks as good or better than it would in Carrara. This isn't to say anything bad about Carrara, but the contrary. Bryce seems to do well with product visualization type renders. Surely there is a professional niche for that.

    Indeed Rashad, that is how I've used Bryce most in a professional capacity over the years.
    I do a lot of packaging design and it's really useful to model the package in Bryce and map the design on to it and render it out so the client gets a better impression of how it will look. Always get more of a result from the client than when it's just presented flat as a piece of artwork
    GeoFix-Ad-Ideas-Print-Doc-4.jpg
    720 x 1018 - 344K
    AllWeatherLabel.jpg
    900 x 267 - 169K
  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @Rareth
    I never said renders look more real than photographs.

    @Dave
    Well, full points for doing it and for the modelling, but you're really crap at blood ;-)

    @David
    Ah, now that makes a lot of sense (and in more ways than one). I wondered why, on the committee, no one seemed enthusiastic for something as cool as a Post-Processing Lab when I brought it up. For such a tinker-orientated bunch it just didn't make sense. The problem with your upcoming product is that we're never going to see a proper implementation in the program because of it. DAZ are never going to implement something if something can already be faked within the program, and at the same time, make them money in selling it. It's just like we're never going to see proper adjustable rounding ability for edges of primitives because the easy, less versatile route has already been taken to supply ready-rounded shapes in the content library.

    I wish you lot would use that noodle sometimes.

  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,123
    edited December 1969

    snip... Glad to hear PJF is teamed up with Horo and David that should yield useful fruits.

    Rashad, my bad punctuation or your reading too fast...

    I was answering to PJF, not suggesting we had formed a triumvirate.

    Just to clarify.

This discussion has been closed.