A file to test renderers

[Ricardo Eloy]

Hi, everyone!

Just like everyone else, I'm always looking for the best to do my imagery. Not only softs, but techniques. That said, I took Ted Boardman's bungalow file and added some stuff (shingles, flowerpots, grass, etc), so that I can have a comprehensive set of features in one single file. Then, I can make as many tests I want, and evaluate the way things go. So, here are 2 images I made using VRay, with 1 direct light (day) for the sun and 1 direct light for the moon and 3 omnis for internal lights (night). The settings are as simple as it gets, witho low AA and only 2 bounces. Render time is about 2 minutes. Pretty reasonable, imho.

and

So, my goal here is to test settings and techniques (said that before, right? ), AND the relation between time spent and quality of the result I got. What do you think?

[]

Rick

[kainoa]

I think your idea is great! "One file to test them all!" I still havent seen LOTR:TT yet .

 

Anyways, I have just one comment. Maybe you should use a model that's less Walt Disney-ish. I feel a different emotion when i view this model/scene as when i view a typical arch scene. What i'm trying to say is that the Boardman scene looks as if it almost needs to be rendered to fit a different context other than PR arch viz. Otherwise it might look weird. Thus, certain render settings might look odd in this scene, but might be appropriate in an arch viz scene and vice-versa.

 

Ah, but i could be totally wrong or could be missing your whole point. Nonetheless, i still it's a great idea. Cheers!

[Ricardo Eloy]

Originally posted by kainoa:

(...)Maybe you should use a model that's less Walt Disney-ish. (...) What i'm trying to say is that the Boardman scene looks as if it almost needs to be rendered to fit a different context other than PR arch viz. Otherwise it might look weird. Thus, certain render settings might look odd in this scene, but might be appropriate in an arch viz scene and vice-versa.

Ah, but i could be totally wrong or could be missing your whole point.

You see, when I chose a "Walt Disney-ish" look (liked that! ), it was on purpose. I think it's very easy to take a simple scene such as a regular house and make it look good using textures we find on the internet or other "utilities" or "cheats". In some arch scenes, you just put some nice textures and voilá! A not-so-good lighting makes it look good. My point is to take something different and make it look good or believable. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but it's something like this: you take a very simple model, apply some wood texture to it, map and render it with your favorite renderer. Looks good, right? I mean, looks like a real, actual physical model. But, what if we take a model that you actually KNOW it's CG and try to make it as real as possible? I took this file and added those giant-size shingles because of that. You know it's CG, you know it's not real. There's nothing there to fool your eyes. And it has all the forms and shapes you might want to test. Just like the famous Max Teapot.

So, I can test the renderers and techs without worrying about the real world. I think it gives me more freedom to play with settings and stuff, because it's not like it has to look like this or that. It just has to look good.

Anyway, you brought a very interesting opinion, and I'm certainly glad to hear it!

Cheers!

[]

Rick

[JonM]

thats nice!

I think the grass in the day one is too bright, but the night one looks really good