I need some help with me Renders.

[Cesar R]

Guys,

 

its been a long time since I attempted a rendering. At my office we are doing a project and I need to produce some rendering for a CAB review (city approval board).

 

Being a BIM guy here I am embracing the workflow from Revit to 3dsmax. Regardless, I have replaced all the material in the scene with A&D materials, recreating the Daylight system.

 

I am using a displacement map and a texture map for the grass, and I am pretty pleased with the results. I believe I need better textures to take that aspect of the render to the next level.

 

However, I feel that my renders look very flat and that the sun light is not as sharp or "intense" at it should be.

I have seen some really nice renders in the gallery and I am wondering what I am doing wrong or what I need to improve in terms of lighting. (I know the texturing needs some major help too ).

 

The same render done with iray seems to have much more depth or contrast.

 

I am more than happy to post any information requested about the file.

 

| Image Removed |

Rendered from 3dsmax

Edited May 31, 2013 by Cesar R

[Justin Hunt]

Displacement grass can be a real killer in mr. Scattered proxy grass would be a safer bet.

 

You must be using rather low settings because there are blotches all over the place, this in turn means that there will be very little detail in the lighting. The Exposure is too bright, especially the mid tones. All this is giving the flat look.

 

Post your render and exposure settings and maybe we can make a few suggestions.

 

jhv

[Cesar R]

You are right, the midtones were set to 1.0, once I dialed it down a bit to 0.6 I got a little more depth.

These are the settings:

 

[Cesar R]

These are the MR rendering Settings I am using / and that I used of the first image I attached.

 

[Cesar R]

It seem to me that the only way for me to get "strong" lights from the sun is to up the MULTIPLIER of the MRSun. However the result then becomes overexposed facades despite the MR exposure control.

 

see below:

 

| Image Removed |

Edited May 31, 2013 by Cesar R

[Justin Hunt]

Leave the sun @ 1 and play with the exposure control. High multipliers give unrealistic results.

Same goes for the FG settings, leave the multiplier @1 and density @ 1, increase the Fg rays to 1000 and interpolation to 50

Trace Depth to Max 100, reflection 20 and refraction 80

 

If you can/ want to send me the file and I will have a play. PM me if you like

 

jhv

[JustinTuaylou]

One of the reasons it is looking flat is that there aren't very many shadow casting objects, such as vegetation, cars, etc. Some objects like those would increase the depth and also the realism by adding some life to the scene.

[Cesar R]

^ Justin you are right, That is an area of improvement.

 

By the way, here is what I came up with since the last post.

 

| Image Removed |

 

I reset all the multipliers to 1.0 and just concentrated on the exposure controls. I rendered the image on a larger resolution and I realized that MR displaced grass is not perfect if you get too close.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Cesar R

[Justin Hunt]

going in the right direction. Yea grass displacement hardly ever works, hence using proxy grass.

[Cesar R]

going in the right direction. Yea grass displacement hardly ever works, hence using proxy grass.

 

Justin, do you know where I can some grass to use as proxies. I am assuming that in this workflow, you have to choose a POV or perspective and paint the grass where it needs to be seem by the camera?

 

Another question, would you say the MR Physical Sky map does not produce any lighting and its just a background? In other words it not ILB like an HDRI or is it?

[Justin Hunt]

I made a patch of grass using Grass-o-matic a while ago and have been using it since. However Icube (I think) do sell some really great grass. You can either use the object painter in max or if you have it then something like multiscatter.

 

Yes you are correct, the mrPhysicalSky in the backround isn't contributing light like HDRI, thats why the mrSky light is needed. If you want to use an HDRI then use a Skylight. Apparently the importance sampling in 2014 has improved things greatly.

 

jhv

[Umesh Raut]

Dear Cesar,

If I may, the camera and light angles need a bit adjustment, I feel. Its that halo created on your facade face that is eating out most of the effect by over brightening the whole image plane I suppose. Generally photographers try and keep Sun behind their right shoulder, well mostly, to get good light and contrast in the image. Composing the view right also would help make it have more depth. Play with different camera positions and lens settings to get a better composed photo as an option. And last but certainly not the least, what comes out of the rendering engine always needs some tweaking in image editing software to give it more realism.

[Cesar R]

Dear Cesar,

If I may, the camera and light angles need a bit adjustment, I feel. Its that halo created on your facade face that is eating out most of the effect by over brightening the whole image plane I suppose. Generally photographers try and keep Sun behind their right shoulder, well mostly, to get good light and contrast in the image. Composing the view right also would help make it have more depth. Play with different camera positions and lens settings to get a better composed photo as an option. And last but certainly not the least, what comes out of the rendering engine always needs some tweaking in image editing software to give it more realism.

 

I thought I had replied earlier... but I guess not.

 

I have heard that lighting technique a while back, and honestly I think it can solve many problems. However what this implied is that I no longer produce a rendering with the "correct lighting conditions". I would get nailed if the Sun where is the incorrect place.

 

I have have seen some raw renders that come out extremely well compared to what I posted originally, and needed very little post processing. A good example is the article on the front page on the forum:

 

Making of a country home.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/2013/05/the-making-of-country-home

 

I did play with the scene a little more tonight and after reading a post about Gamma, I realized that my scene was set to 1.0 or rather no gamma. Once I changed it to 2.2 I was much closer to this:

 

| Image Removed as per my offices request |

 

its makes sense, gamma 1.0 tends to washout images. I did apply some of the advice about the midtone level etc mentioned above, but this time I had a much better "base" render.

 

What do you guys think ? - should I try vray or stick to Mentalray a little longer

 

 

 

PS: I just realized my glass either did not export or I deleted it at some point by mistake.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Cesar R

[Justin Hunt]

it depends on how much time you have to finish this one. In the long run it wont hurt to learn vray.

 

I think that once you have worked up the textures and added a bit more detail to the scene it will come out very nicely.

 

jhv

[Cesar R]

Thank you Justin !

[Umesh Raut]

Does that have any gamma correction or light adjustments? Because still that face looks burnt out and your scale seems a little off too, or may be the texture mapping has a different scale. Also, adding a bump or (very very low) displacement to the main face might just add some depth. Not sure whether and/or where it's in MR, but V-Ray has a good override material to take care of that very strong green cast on the white GI elements of that building on the right.

[Cesar R]

Does that have any gamma correction or light adjustments? Because still that face looks burnt out and your scale seems a little off too, or may be the texture mapping has a different scale. Also, adding a bump or (very very low) displacement to the main face might just add some depth. Not sure whether and/or where it's in MR, but V-Ray has a good override material to take care of that very strong green cast on the white GI elements of that building on the right.

 

Not sure what you mean by light correction - but it does have 2.2 Gamma on textures and render.

I need more practice working with geometry that is one whole piece in 3dsmax like the wainscot. I need to sharpen up on all aspects of texturing. I agree the stone is out of scale on the front.

 

Its funny you notice the green bounced from the grass ? on the far building. I am using MR, I think it also has some overrides if IRCC.

 

You mention post processing is a big part. One thing I always wondered is what items are usually tweaked in Photoshop afterwards.

 

I am also unsure how to get a bring sunny render without over exposed areas.

[Francisco Penaloza]

composition and illumination can make big difference, you are not lacking on brightness at all, right the opposite I think your image is too bright, the problem is balance in your lighting, sometimes using the sun system as it will be in real life does not help to get a "nice" image, it is up to you to show what it will be or just go the artistic way, I would low the sun a little more and move to the right side, you'll get less intensity of the sun and longer shadows, don't do it to much but just try to find the soft spot. For exposure my rule of thumb is Fstop 16, ISO 100 speed vary between 80-100 and I usually reduce the burn to 0.2 or 0.15, if you want to kick more the contrast do it in photoshop.

also while the scene is empty it will look brighter, after introducing some trees, a ground an other objects the light bounce will help you to get more color variance.

 

Side note; the tutorial that you mentioned, the lighting in any scene is divided in 2 element, Direct light (sun) indirect light (Sun light bounce and Sky) if you use the HDRI method the idea is use more indirect light than direct light, that way you get softer shadows and more color variance, while if you only use MRay sun/Sky the energy will come mostly from the sun so you'll get hard shadows and a stronger warm tint from the sun. You can lower the sun intensity to balance with the MR Sky, that can give you more color variance. or just add a skyligh with an HDRI on it.

[Justin Hunt]

The green tint will lessen as you increase the FG settings. I agree with all the other comments

 

jhv

[Umesh Raut]

and as Francisco has said, populating the scene with some real life elements, using skylight with HDR map and lowering the sun intensity would certainly produce good result. Don't know about Justin's tip because I haven't used MR (for arch viz) for years now; but sounds off since final gather could only accentuate the accumulated energy data, I suppose.

[Cesar R]

and as Francisco has said, populating the scene with some real life elements, using skylight with HDR map and lowering the sun intensity would certainly produce good result. Don't know about Justin's tip because I haven't used MR (for arch viz) for years now; but sounds off since final gather could only accentuate the accumulated energy data, I suppose.

 

however I also think that by refining the solution what looks like a lot of color bleed with be resolved and would not look so prominent. It goes both ways I think.

[Justin Hunt]

Correct, with low settings colour bleed can be really bad as its trying to average out a small amount of samples over a very large area. With higher settings (although not too high) it will have more samples to work with and be able to resolve a more accurate solution.

 

jhv