bustovh Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Hey there. I find very easy and powerfully tool Maxwell. This is a scene WIP, not all polygons are material applied, meanwhile please advise. Only Sky and Sun are source of light (if i do not confuse it was for sky 3.0 intensity and for sun 1.5). Pay attention - the scene was scaled to small on grid. That's way some materials appears to be giant. Everything is in study and experiment. Very usefully VTC lessons Please advise, comment & banter me, contribute with ideas. reached SL approx. 24, time passed approx. 24 hr for the big ones. CPU i5 3,3 Ghz RAM 16 Gb Video 2 gb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisztian Gulyas Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 You don't need to scale it down, that won't help with the render time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewspencer Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 All are a bit underexposed. Also, the camera angle on #1 seems quite tall; taller than a person's perspective. The camera angle on #2 is strange; like the viewer is about to fall over. #3 has some nice elements but the composition is sort of oddly off-center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numerobis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 it was for sky 3.0 intensity and for sun 1.5). It would be better to use realistic values for the lights. Unrealistically strong emitters can result in more noisy and uncontrasty images. Why not just use a higher ISO or lower ss like you would do in real life? Here are some reference values: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustovh Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 It would be better to use realistic values for the lights. Unrealistically strong emitters can result in more noisy and uncontrasty images. Why not just use a higher ISO or lower ss like you would do in real life? Here are some reference values: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value Thank you for reply. I'll try for realistic values, and post it soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustovh Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 All are a bit underexposed. Also, the camera angle on #1 seems quite tall; taller than a person's perspective. The camera angle on #2 is strange; like the viewer is about to fall over. #3 has some nice elements but the composition is sort of oddly off-center. Agree about cameras. There is some tips for setting camera. I'll come back soon with new perspectives. 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