mi75 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Hey guys and girls, this is my first post and my first time using VRay. My main concern is getting the lighting to look nice and clean. Product placement and kitchen design I'm still working on. Feel free to critique the hell out of it I have thick skin Thanks mi75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCAD Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I love the kitchen...except for the wall tiles..they somehow dont go well..but overall very nice lighting..good work..look forward to see more interiors Meher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandmanNinja Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 The tiles look good as a backsplash, but don't think I've seen them carry on through the rest of the wall surfaces. Lighting looks good to me, and I'm seeing some reflection on the kitchen island. Great way to introduce yourself to the forum, Martin. Where bouts in Australia are ya, mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Thanks for the positive feedback guys, much appreciated, especially since I've been out of the game for quiet sometime now. I agree about the tiles, I'm not happy with them either. I'll probably change them back to what I previously had and just leave those as splash back. SandmanNinja I'm located on the Gold Coast, QLD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOOXY Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Overall I think you're on the right track...your lighting seems a bit natural. Keep us updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskin Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I think the lighting is nice. I like the “burn out” at the window. The seats look awfully uncomfortable and my thighs would get bruised by the counter, but that’s not a criticism. The books are a bit repetitive… lots of neon green covers in there, but the detail to them looks good… make a few more and give some more variance to the color of them. The wall tile is definitely the pink elephant in the room, the brown just doesn’t work. The plant looks a bit too fake for the scene. Overall…. Excellent render, I haven’t used vray (I like mr), but im impressed. Good work. I like the attention to detail. Did you model everything or did you use other sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 9, 2008 Author Share Posted November 9, 2008 Thanks mskin. I not a huge fan of the chairs either, I'm thinking of changing them. As for the tiles I changed them on my latest render. The books I also agree, to be totally honest I got bored after scanning a few book ends and decided to just repeat them to see how they looked before scanning more to fill the shelf. I can't take credit for the kitchen accessories, I bought most of my models so I could spend more time on lighting and composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandmanNinja Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 I can't take credit for the kitchen accessories, I bought most of my models so I could spend more time on lighting and composition. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Some think that you have to model everything. I'm a pretty good poly modeller and could model everything inside a room, but why? If you can use some pre-modelled accessories to flesh out your scene so that it frees you to work on lighting and texturing - that's cool in my book. Post more WIPs when you can, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskin Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 i dont have a problem with it either... i was just curious. as for the books, i've taken the same image and just adjusted the hue and saturation in photoshop and made three or four different copies of it, kind of helps make it look a bit more random Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 I've made a few changes to the first image I posted, not sure if for better or worse. In some way I still prefer the first image camera angle. I think its a 40mm compared to a 17mm lens. Anyone else have a preference ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlAhearne Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I'm with you mi75, I prefer the camera angle on the first image; the camera seems too low on the second image... The tiles look better in the second image I'd say; they seem to fit in much better with the overall design of the kitchen. Nice use of 'props' to fill out the scene; did you model them, or are they from a generic model collection? Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 17mm lens? thats crazy talk. Whats the film gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 Nice use of 'props' to fill out the scene; did you model them, or are they from a generic model collection? Carl Thanks Carl. No I didn't model the props except for the oven which needs some texture work still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 13, 2008 Author Share Posted November 13, 2008 17mm lens? thats crazy talk. Whats the film gate? Film gate = 36mm Focal length = 18mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Thats very wide. I prefer the 40mm myself. I think 40mm or 50mm is the human eye field of view. Once is gets so wide you start getting quite severe distortion. 15mm is considered fish-eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 14, 2008 Author Share Posted November 14, 2008 I'm used to taking indoor photos for RE with a 10mm - 17mm lens on 1.6x equivalent SLR body, which equates to 16mm on a 36mm gate. Hence why I tried it in Max. I do agree it looks too distorted on the edges so I'm going back to the 30-40mm. Thanks for the input Tommy L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskin Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 the second view makes me feel like a piece of spam on the counter top. tile is much more appropriate. First view is definitely better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerdream Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'm used to taking indoor photos for RE with a 10mm - 17mm lens on 1.6x equivalent SLR body, which equates to 16mm on a 36mm gate. Hence why I tried it in Max. I do agree it looks too distorted on the edges so I'm going back to the 30-40mm. Thanks for the input Tommy L. 24 or 28 mm shift lens is what I use to use on a Nikon. Don't know how that translates to 3d software though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 24 or 28 mm shift lens is what I use to use on a Nikon. Don't know how that translates to 3d software though? Translates to a 24 or 28 mm shift lens. You just have to ensure you have the correct 'film gate'. Thats the horizontal dimension of the sensor in your digital camera in mm. (I think...) I have a Canon Rebel, which has a 22mm wide sensor, so the film gate is 22. However, I cant remember if I then have to apply the x1.6 lens length compensation. If someone would like to clear that up that would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markf Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'm not familiar with "film gate". I also have a Cannon Digital Rebel and can confirm that you use a 1.6 multiplication factor to get the "standard 35mm camers lens " equivalent. IOW if you take a photo with your Digital Rebel and the exif info says, for instance , focal length 31 mm. That is equivalent to 31 x 1.6 = 49.6 mm focal length for "standard 35mm camers lens " and is the camera focal length you would set in Max if perspective matching. Hope that makes sense. I like the first camera angle better. Otherwise your rendering looks good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Yes, I understand that. So if the film gate (im talking about the vray physical camera here) was 22 like the actual camera Im using, I would put the actual lens length in? Am I thinking too hard? In reality the 1.6 compensation is needed because the back of the lens is mounted nearer to the sensor than the 35mm camera the lens was actually built for, so the 50mm becomes an 80mm. So if my 'virtual camera' is a 35mm and Im camera matching a small body camera (with a 1.6x conversion) where do I compensate in the 'virtual camera'. In the lens (80mm lens) or in the film gate (22mm instead of 35mm) or in both? I know, Ill just test it. Then I can give an answer instead of asking long questions in a hijacked thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 Yes, I understand that. So if the film gate (im talking about the vray physical camera here) was 22 like the actual camera Im using, I would put the actual lens length in? Am I thinking too hard? In reality the 1.6 compensation is needed because the back of the lens is mounted nearer to the sensor than the 35mm camera the lens was actually built for, so the 50mm becomes an 80mm. So if my 'virtual camera' is a 35mm and Im camera matching a small body camera (with a 1.6x conversion) where do I compensate in the 'virtual camera'. In the lens (80mm lens) or in the film gate (22mm instead of 35mm) or in both? I know, Ill just test it. Then I can give an answer instead of asking long questions in a hijacked thread. It's the sensor size that receives the light from the lens that determines the 1.6x not the body size of the camera. I have a full bodied Canon which still has the 1.6x factor. The 22mm sensor is actually cropping the image you would have received if you had a 35mm sensor camera. That's my understanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 It's the sensor size that receives the light from the lens that determines the 1.6x not the body size of the camera. I have a full bodied Canon which still has the 1.6x factor. The 22mm sensor is actually cropping the image you would have received if you had a 35mm sensor camera. That's my understanding Really? Oh, I wonder where I got that info from. Maybe down the pub, thats the source of most of my wrong information..... I have a white paper I got from one of my old colleagues at 3dcom. I'll dig it out, Im sure it clears up all these questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi75 Posted November 18, 2008 Author Share Posted November 18, 2008 Really? Oh, I wonder where I got that info from. Maybe down the pub, thats the source of most of my wrong information..... I have a white paper I got from one of my old colleagues at 3dcom. I'll dig it out, Im sure it clears up all these questions. LOL, what can't the pub do. yeah that would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now