Hmmm i've confused myself it would seem!!!

[Dave Buckley]

Ok so here goes. . .

 

There are many different ways of lighting an exterior scene as i am aware, whether this be skydomes, daylight systems, standard lights and possibly the production shaders.

 

I am currently trying to develop a portfolio, but when it comes to exteriors i get stuck. I see all these renders that i would love to be able to recreate but i just struggle when trying to break them down and figure out how they have been created.

 

I would like to be able to use high res skies on my renders like in the ones attached, (sorry PURE for using you as an example again, its a compliment) but in order to create convincing exteriors like this i would i need to light with the daylight system and then just add the sky in post???

 

Would i need to map the sky to a dome object in my scene, and if so is that it or would i also need it to contribute to the lighting???

 

I think the question i am trying to ask is how do you guys go about gettin skies in your scenes and if so how do you go about matching the lighting from that sky???

 

What are your guys techniques for making the sky blend into the render convincingly so that it looks like it should be there???

[mattclinch]

one word. photoshop.

[Dave Buckley]

cheers matt, i am aware of that but is that it???

 

do you not use the hdri's to contribute to the lighting of the render????

 

for example, using the rayswitchers in mental ray so that final gather uses the light info from the sky image??? (i.e. jeff's tut about skydomes on his blog)

 

or do u simply just render out using normal lighting methods and then tweak the render and the sky to suit each other in photoshop???

 

matt if you don't want to give your secrets out to the whole world, feel free to email me

[mattclinch]

quite simply dave, IMO, you are getting far too bogged down in the intricacies of your 3D software.

 

something around a third of all the 3d and renderer related questions i see posted here i tend to feel could be answered in relatively simple post produciton.

 

i've always seen a trade off in 3d-2d sections of creating an image. up to a point (building, simple lighting, texturing and composing a shot) 3d software it is the best bit of kit for the job, but after that i feel that it just takes too long to do the nitty gritty stuff. changing a sky? render a channel for the background and drop one in in 4 seconds. why should i waste valuable time worrying about things like "using the rayswitchers in mental ray so that final gather uses the light info from the sky image???". if 'shoppin it meant less quality, then i'd do it in 3d. quality is the most important thing. but it doesn't. i consider myself a better photoshop user than a 3ds max one and as i've mentioned on this forum before, i think 60% of every image i complete was photoshopped.

 

i admit there are times (animations, multiple shots, last minute jobs etc) where a higher amount of 3D input is required, but i am 99% positive that the images you used as examples are the result of large amount of 2D post work - skies included.

[Dave Buckley]

cheers for the input matt, i do sometimes feel as though i am thinkin far too deep into things. i guess i just want to be at the same standard as the pictures i used as examples, and at the same standard as the images/animations on the websites of Hayes D, Uniform etc

 

And with them being industry leaders i just thought there must be a lot more to it then meets the eye. For example, what is it that separates there work from everbody else. What are they doing differently??

 

I think i'm just far too indecisive as i am looking to get my portfolio up and running but wouldn't dream of applying to companies such as HD and Uniform unless the work on my portfolio is as good as theres. But then i guess it also comes down to style preference, there are so many different styles of render, many of which look both good and bad. Its just deciding what types of renders to do and show in a showreel and also what style to do them in

[neko]

matt.

 

i agree with your philosophy about rendering and the use of photoshop.

 

i'd love to get your opinion on the best resources for learning post-production techniques. i'm sure the forum is full of these discussions, but i'm putting you under the spotlight because of the quality of your work and the breadth of your knowledge/experience.

 

how's that for butt kissing ?

[Justin Hunt]

I agree, sometime simpler solutions work better. Full marks for getting under the hood, but and this is a small but. I too have noticed that you tend to over think the solution and when you get one think that it should be appied verbatum.

 

This is a more an issue I have with most tutorials found on the web. They are click this and this with this value. There is no explination as to why you should be doing this and what those settings are doing. One of the major reasons why I like Mental Bout max, Jeff Patton an Master Zap. They give reasons for their choices.

 

Another thing to do is learn to adapt workflows to suit you and your needs. This is what HD, Uniform and the rest are doing to achieve their respective looks.

 

Practice, practice, practice. All the names you mention have been in the game a long long time. and as such have developed their skills. Hell I've been in the game over 13 years and I still consider myself a noob. Always will.

 

As an answer to your question, If you are using Max2009 then you have the option to exclide the dome from FG, and GI (object properties -> mentalray)

or you you could use the rayswitch the control what is affecting the fg , gi reflections etc, which is very handy. However in a production environment Time is a factor, if you can do it in 20 seconds in post then do it in post.

 

There are very, very few people I have come across that can spit out a render that needs no post work. Post is an essential and vital step in 3d production. IT IS NOT CHEATING. There is a common saying in the film industry, "Fix it in Post"

 

jhv

[Dave Buckley]

Cheers for the comments guys, i guess i just like to know how things work, and i blame myself for my dissertation on Mental Ray. I really had to get into the nitty gritty of things and haven't stopped doing so since i left university. And i suppose my other downfall is that i don't really know photoshop. Well that is about o change

 

i have just arrived in work and infront of me i have adobe photoshop classroom in a book and six videos from gnomonology about using photoshop for production.

 

I do use it, just never been taught how to use it, so oonly use it for things i need that i have taught myself.

 

Anyway guys, cheers for your input. One final thing, what stage would you get a render too before taking it to post, and what sort of things would you adjust/change/add in post???

[Dave Buckley]

Right guys you do realise that you will now get bombarded with post related questions

 

Here is the first one, and i guess it eliminated what was confusing me.

 

I have rendered out an image in targa format with no physical sky (or should i keep the physical sky?) so that i can do sky replacement in photoshop.

 

I also have a high resolution sky that i want to add to this render and make it look convincing. Ok i'l put it into logical steps that i think i would need to do in post to make it look convinving.

 

1. Firstly, do i render with or without physical sky??
   
2. Is targa the correct format to be rendering to???
   
3. When i am in photoshop what do i need to do in order to make it look like the sky should be there??
   

Surely i can't just replace the alpha with the sky. I have glass in my scenne so how do i go about making the sky appear in reflections??

 

To make it look as tho my sky was in the original render then the scene should amtch the colour of the sky image, is this a case of colour grading??

 

Or should it matched in the original render (obviously my daylight system is set at a reasonable time to match that of when the sky photo was taken but i mean in terms of where the daylight system is positioned in relation to where the sun is in the sky photo)

 

So many questions, so much learning, so little tiem

 

I really do appreciate your help guys

[Dave Buckley]

hmm, i think i like this post production lark

 

just added sky to this model, rendered as targa with physical sky enabled to give some reflections in glass, then replaced physical sky in phtooshop with the sky image you can see.

 

then added levels adjustment layer, along with hue saturation adjustment layer.

 

then sharpened the building a bit, flattened the image and added a film grain et voila.

 

i think it looks/works quite good

 

opinions???

[Justin Hunt]

Personally I prefer using Tif's. I usually save out to 16bit with Alpha. I know that you get more with 32bit yadyadyad...

 

In Photoshop open the Tif file, load the alpha selection and copy and past to a new layer (short cut Ctlr J )

 

Open the sky image and drag and drop it into the render. Move the layer between the Backround and the cut out render.

 

When I am back in the office tomorrow I'll fish out a link to some great photoshop video pod casts.

 

As when to move to post, as soon as you are happy with the render in terms of modeling, texturing, lighting and composition. In other words, no fixed stage.

 

jhv

[Dave Buckley]

Cheers Justin

 

I guess all i am missing really is pickin the right sky in terms of matching the lighting and sun direction from my daylight system and also matching the prespective of the sky to fit my render perspective

 

so any tips on that would be great.

[mattclinch]

matt.

 

i agree with your philosophy about rendering and the use of photoshop.

 

i'd love to get your opinion on the best resources for learning post-production techniques. i'm sure the forum is full of these discussions, but i'm putting you under the spotlight because of the quality of your work and the breadth of your knowledge/experience.

 

how's that for butt kissing ?

 

glad you agree prodham.

 

as for resources, i have to say i am completely self-taught. though... that is not strictly true as everyone i work with have passed on tips and tricks and workflows, so my knowledge is really cumulative from them, plus what i have figured out on my own.

 

golden rules of post production for me...

 

5. don't trust your render. 3d only takes it so far. life is stranger than a software GI algorithm.

4. the radiohead rule - "just because you feel it, doesn't mean its there". don't always just 'do' what you 'think' will be happening - you're probably wrong.

3. experiment. pose yourself questions and quickly mock it up. "what happens if that wall is much darker?" etc.

2. make it work in black and white and flip it. if it works in greyscale and compositionally looks good flipped, you're halfway there.

1. REFERENCE, REFERENCE, REFERENCE.

[Dave Buckley]

ok cheers matt, so the last image that i posted in this thread looked ok to me, apart from the fact it has not textures.

 

could you disect it for me and let me know everything that is wrong with it, i want to know all mistakes, composition, lighting etc etc i can only improve by knowing what i have done wrong. i want to make it interesting whilst at the same time convincing

[shaneis]

"...make it work in black and white and flip it. if it works in greyscale and compositionally looks good flipped, you're halfway there..."

 

SPLATT! BIFF! KAPOW! Holy snot balls, Batman! What a great trick.

 

Thanks Matt! (starts rummaging for old university photography notes)

[ipxstudios]

A technique I use is mask out the windows in photoshop. Overlay the sky in the window areas and give it transparency.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

glad you agree prodham.

 

 

2. make it work in black and white and flip it. if it works in greyscale and compositionally looks good flipped, you're halfway there.

 

...add in the old squint test for assessing the figure ground of an image.

[shaneis]

Dave, have a look at this link. A good description of how the Elemental Cover was created. There's a little Shockwave animation showing you the passes he did in 3D. Very simple, and as Matt has pointed out, the real magic was all done in Photoshop.

 

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4592

[Dave Buckley]

yeh i've gathered a few links and resources together now which i just need to go through???

 

another question i have is when do you decide whether you should do sky replacement or just replace with a gradient because i did gradient replacement and i reckon once the model is textured it would look ok, although i do need to get out of the habit of putting this grain on everything

 

but it just helps break up the contrast between the new gradient and the building edges

[STRAT]

making a convincing exterior is down to the artist, and there's numerous ways of doing it. yup, post work is an essential element, but i personally prefer to do as much work in the renderer as possible before i get into post. just my choice.

 

for a typical day time exterior, i'll generally set up my model all in a grey (or material overide) monochromic material, decide what lighting mood i want in my scene, and bung in my main direct sun light. that might either be a spot style light or a day light system depending how i feel on the day.

Then, at this early stage of the rendering i'll choose the sky i think i'd like to use and that suits the lighting atmos. i have a vast library of 3000 pixel plus skys to choose from. this makes life most enjoyable when you can pick and choose

 

When i choose my sky i'll put it in the background slot, and in the environment slot - this will give the model the IBL, the image based light from the sky to help illuminate my scene. I rarely use true hdri's or physical cameras.

 

then it's a case of materialing up your scene and tweeking environmental gi settings until things work. but again, render the scene with a background alpha channel, this will give you scope to change the sky over more easily in post.

 

this general approach works for me. as i say, i like to establish the lighting mood very early on, this includes the general lighting atmos and background. if at a later date there's changes to be made then consider them then. if they're considerable light changes, and for me that includes level changes, then i personally prefer to re-render than post it. a re-render takes longer but gives inherently 'realer' results than photoshop editing. again, my choice.

 

[shaneis]

Dave, you've sort of answered your own question there... the need to correct the mismatch between gradients and original geometry points out the problem with gradient skies... they're difficult to match. If you're using the mentalRay sky, why not keep it? After all it is a special kind of gradient.

 

At any rate, I'd always go for an image of a sky. Kind of seems a waste to go to all this effort to maintain a photorealistic render and then slap on a Photoshop gradient in lieu of a decent sky image.

[STRAT]

 

At any rate, I'd always go for an image of a sky. Kind of seems a waste to go to all this effort to maintain a photorealistic render and then slap on a Photoshop gradient in lieu of a decent sky image.

 

depends what your renderer's daylight system is like - vray's daylight generated gradient backgrounds can be beautifully photoreal

 

but i agree, i certainly wouldn't use a photoshop gradient

[Dave Buckley]

i'm just stuggling on what style to stick to for my portfolio, i've seen so many good my work to have many differnet styles, but i want my work to have consitency if you get me, so don't want to have a mismatch of styles.

 

its just that i've seen a lot of good renders with just gradients instead of skys, attached are a few examples

 

i am currently trying to get as many example renders as pond ecide which split them into categories and thend ecide which i like best and then decide why i like them

[STRAT]

you can of course make your own photoshop gradient skys, but unless you're experienced in it and have a good eye then i'd seriously advise against it. you can always use a photograph of a sky gradient. (i dont rate those two skys gradients btw).

 

and dont be afraid of different render styles or consistency of 'sameness' in your portfolio - you'll develop your own visual style as time goes by whatever you render, but vary your PF as much as possible if you can. if, at this stage, things look different or miss matched then great, go with it.

Veriety is the spice of life, dont make it all the same and boring. if you're happy with a picture you do put it in, even if it's not your usual.

 

[Dave Buckley]

cheers guys i think i've cleared up all my questions for the time being been a great help its appreciated. i'm going to be making a new post soon tho

 

i've revisited teh dwayne ellis bathroom scene and now looking for help on composition. i want to make the render as good as physically possible.

 

so watch this space. its just rendering now and i want you guys to scrutinise it as much as possibly can and be cruel as you like, it helps me learn