Jump to content

mfured20

Members
  • Posts

    222
  • Joined

Personal Information

  • Country
    United_States

mfured20's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Also, if you are using vray3.0 or newer, the probabilistic lights can sometimes give funky effects like that. I tend to switch them off these days, until I can figure out how to use them better.
  2. Hey Jens - To me, the image is reading very well. A couple things, tho - Whats up with the hanging light fixtures? They look faceted to me, but randomly. It might be the design of the light itself, but to a dude who used to have to try and bring in crappy geometry when computers didn't have enough RAM to handle anything, it looks like a badly imported model. I would change the angle of the chair by the window so that it reads differently. I keep finding that I look at it and try to figure out how its designed. I would try rotating it one way, and then the other, and see if either of those choices let it read better. And if it doesn't, that's ok too; the positioning limits what it can do. And I would add some art on the right hand wall. It doesn't really matter what it is, but I would try to break that up a little bit, and make sure that the fun reflective stuff in the kitchen had some more to play with and really show it off. Lastly, I would personally add a little bit of blue to the sky outside. The rendering is very white, which is nice, but I like having a splash of color in my renderings somewhere just to liven them up. Likewise, I tend to wear colorful pocket squares when I wear a suit, just to perk things up a little. Nice job, dude.
  3. Overall, I think you are definitely on the right path here; the photoshop work you have done has been especially good. That being said... The dude in the foreground is huge. Like 10 feet tall. If you assume that the camera angle is at a normal height of 5', the horizon line is at 5' too. And that works great in this image, except for that one dude. I made a quick diagram of what I see; please check out the attached image. So, check it. The blue line is your normal horizon line at 5'. The red line is just pretty much the center of the dock going out. This is the general rule your people should follow if you want it to look right. Make all of the eyes at the same height and it just makes sense to our brains. There are other options, of course; if the camera was low to the ground, and you wanted to make a statement of a large figure striding past, and maybe some glittering waves really catching the light in the foreground, with some striking sun and sky on and around the building. Or with an aerial shot looking down on the scene. But your view just makes sense as an eye level view. If you want to keep the forced perspective in this, then I suggest that you add more things to re-inforce that the scale of the dude is right. For instance, a couple of signs at the head of the dock that are in his scale might work; also if the vertical supports along the dock were a little different supporting that the view is one of a little lower, and looking ever-so-slightly up for dramatic purposes. But as it stands right now, I get confused. Beyond that, dude, there isn't much. You could try to soften the distinction in the foreground between the wooden dock and the rock... especially with the distortion of those round verticals. The basic color balance between the rock and the wood is a little off, and you can see that; resolution, too. But not a big deal. I might also try to add a little bit of hazy mist in between the building and the background mountains, just to really make the building pop off of the background, and let the background recede a little bit more. Overall, pretty damn good.
  4. I almost always encode my final stuff thru Premiere. I do all my heavy stuff in After Effects and do the final encoding from Premiere. Works well enough when you have the settings right.
  5. Looks pretty good, but check out the gray chair on the left... I think it might be floating just a touch.
  6. mfured20

    Where to begin?

    Allright, here we go... I have to run in a mintue but this should give you something to go on. I have put instructions into the images, and you can pull them up for a little help. I mentioned that i would build the physical environment, and that is because i would apply that picture to each wall in some manner, so that the furniture, when finished, will reflect whats supposed to be there. If your photo has a window in the right hand wall, then you can use the UV mapping to stretch that photo across the modeled wall and give it that basic color, so your chrome or whatever will catch splashes of the correct reflection. another thing to keep in mind is the photo itself. Don't forget how photos work, and how close it is to how this modeling works. The horizon line is always going to be flat, and you have to be sure that your photo and the model have the same horizon line, or else everything is going to be stretched and terrible. you might have to adjust the photo itself in photoshop by adding more space to either the top or the bottom to get it lined up right. hope this helps, I dont know if i can answer any more questions for a little bit. good luck!
  7. mfured20

    Where to begin?

    Hey Vi, I would be willing to help; I have some knowledge about this. Would you be willing to upload the photo that you have to match? Ill do a couple quick images to show you how I would approach this. They will be a quick and dirty way of doing it, but they will work.
  8. Hey Red - Are you using a skydome around your scene? It looks like, if you are, its blocking the direct light coming from the sun. You have to exclude skydomes from the vraysun so that the rays will come thru. If its not that, I am not sure if I can help you, because I don't use vray for sketchup, but it certainly looks like something is blocking your sunlight. As far as settings for the sun go, I barely touch the default settings. The only thing that I do, sometimes, is decrease the turbidity and ozone. They have similar effects, and adjust the amount of 'haze' near the skyline. Other than that, I adjust the shutter speed on my vrayphyscam to get an acceptable exposure, and thats it. good luck!
  9. Try putting in a different sky too, that might help things. If you render with a skydome, you can catch reflections of the environment in your windows. That can add a whole lot to your image.
  10. This is pretty sweet, it has a great feel. Nice work!
  11. Hey Guys! Thanks for the responses.... @ luc - Well, your impression of this is pretty spot on. I did do a more realistic render, then abstracted it. I didn't give it to the client this way, I just thought that I wanted to start doing so. The reason for this is that, working over the years specializing in Casino interiors, our clients never wanted photo-realistic renders... They wanted bright, flashy, glizzty images that make their casinos look unrealistic and amazing. I used to hate that, taking a decent image and making it splashy and ridiculous, but then I just sort of got used to it. Maybe I am too used to it now, and even the bad things look good. Also, I think there can be a niche market for this sort of 'look'. I have found more and more clients that have not wanted a true photorealistic rendering, but want it to be more 'painterly'. I was hoping to fill some of that niche with that sort of client, as well as being able to do regular images. I went ahead and attached the original image [its an OK rendering, nothing special really, a rush job] so you can see what it looked like before I 'hdr-ed' it. @sancheuz - I was using GI for the original [like I said above, it's attached]. Its a pretty standard vRay setup: Irr Calc medium, LC @1000, Adaptive DMC @ 2-7. If theres an issue with the shade/shadows its more likely my lighting; I tend to use standard spots with vRay shadows instead of IES lights because I feel like they have more control with the falloffs. Old system, but its always worked well enough for me. @nic - Part of the reason for that light balance is the methodology that Photomatix uses to tone-map the image and give it that unrealistic look: It highlights and brightens certain areas of the image more than others, and the only control over it is a slider. The software is very weird like that, and it distorts the original image something awful, but then again, thats pretty much its purpose. Losing out on subtle color variation, gradual shadow gradation, and other GI nuances is just a price to be paid for the filters that I ran it through to achieve this look. @renderhaus - I have pretty much made all my excuses in the paragraphs above, but you are totally right; This image IS flat, overlit, and unrealistic. But I still like it, and I wondered what the community-at-large thought about it. I have never felt that an image had to be totally realistic to sell the idea of a design, much the same way that architects can use just the imagery they need to get their point across. A good example of what I mean is from Yama, just a week ago, who posted up this thread with a concept design for his friend. Its not strictly photo-realistic, but it gets the point across very well. You could argue that his image is elegant and simple, and mine is garish and busy, and you'e be right. But the idea is still what I am trying to work out... Can I use this sort of image, poor as it may seem to our eyes, to sell designs? Will people that don't know anything about what really makes a rendering realistic respond better to this sort of image than to my original, which itself lacks any sparkle? Lol, maybe I should just put my time into making better images in the first place, and try not to cut so many corners, but thats hard when I am making a quarter of what I did in 2006 and I am doing better work. Just looking for a quick way out, or maybe a niche to pander to those that don't know any better. Thanks for your input, fellas / ladies! I really do appreciate it! - matt
  12. I haven't done much animating, but the ones that I have done I have exported from Adobe Premiere in H.264 format. That gave me the best outcome of everything that I have tried. Even that I had to adjust the settings for each one differently. Just keep trying.
  13. Hey Red... I understand that you don't have an image to show, but its going to be hard for anyone to help you without it. There could be a couple people, maybe, that have had the EXACT same issue that you have and know EXACTLY whats wrong just from your description, but I think it would work out a lot better if you can find a way to post something for us to go on. Good luck.
  14. The modeling looks good, but I am confused as to what is in the extreme foreground. It just doesn't seem to make sense. You might want to do some UV mapping on the individual stairs, since they are all the same. Also, even tho I like the look of the lighting now, you could try another solution with some sharper shadows and more light areas vs shadows. Little things like the ceiling light in the corner above the glass door should be shining some more light onto the wall that its so close to etc. Overall pretty good start tho.
  15. Studio/Institution: Brent Chamberlain and Assoc. Client: Undisclosed Genre: Other Software: 3DS Max, vRay, Photoshop, Photomatix Description: Hey there, Guys / Gals! I have been experimenting with some exaggerated HDR-Style images, and I have decided to go forward with them. These images aren't utterly photo-realistic, but they aren't meant to resemble hand work either. As you can see, they are over-saturated and graphic, but not 'over the top.' I will be posting up some of these that I plan on putting up into my upcoming newly-revamped website, and try to continue to live on making renderings for a living. Anyway, this is one of several suites for a casino [not saying where, sorry] that we wrapped up last year. I will probably be putting up some of the other suites that I did over the next few days too. This was labeled the 'Zen Suite'. Hope you like it! - matt
×
×
  • Create New...