Iain Denby Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 I think adding the peeps on this could be VERY dodgy for many reasons (I know you will be aware of this already). Looking at this viewpoint, I think any figures in the foreground would destroy this image, as they would dominate the view. My feeling is to give it a 'people just arriving, and having a drink at the bar first' feel. This would still give it life, interest and scale without loosing what you've achieved already. Anyway, get this wrapped up now, you've got some judging to do ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 Looking at this viewpoint, I think any figures in the foreground would destroy this image, as they would dominate the view. My feeling is to give it a 'people just arriving, and having a drink at the bar first' feel. This would still give it life, interest and scale without loosing what you've achieved already. I think you are right. I hadn't thought of that before commiting to a layout, below. Maybe I should KO the foreground/left figure. Though I thought it balanced the composition. Hummmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trhoads Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 ... Maybe I should KO the foreground/left figure... Even though I am not working at your level, I agree. As for the rest of the peeps, I think it could make it look very good, to see people enjoying and using the space. I am afraid that with no people in the DR it will look empty, make you think something is wrong with the food! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 Even though I am not working at your level, I agree. I'm convinced! He dies! While I wanted the balancing weight of the figure, it is nice without it because an open table is in front of you, so its inviting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Plus he'd be the biggest thing in the image. It looks like you have a bit of a moire pattern on the wall to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 Plus he'd be the biggest thing in the image. It looks like you have a bit of a moire pattern on the wall to the right. Pissing me off. But I can't get rid of it. AA set really high for that surface, 3K image...so it stays. It fought me hard enough. Trying to make a perfect image is one of the problems with this project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Trying to make a perfect image is one of the problems with any project Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 The people are going to look good. I even like the look of the black profiles you have in there now. What are you going to use for figures? I agree about the moire on the wall. It's really distracting. Whatever it is supposed to be isn't really showing up anways, so maybe you could simplify or enlarge the object/pattern spacing to get rid of or at least reduce the moire. What kind of floor is that? I can't really tell. It looks blurry, but I'm not sure if that's from the floor texture or the soft shadows. There seems to be a bit of a blurry vs. sharp & grainy battle going on. And forgive me, but the chosen perspective still bothers me. I know it's not your fault. I think your client is greedy with how much they want to see in the view. To me, you could crop all sides except for the top & have a better looking composition - like this! I don't know all the rules of composition, I just try to do what looks best to me. Hey Ernest, thanks for not being too prideful to share your work with us & listen to our comments - even if they are bad sometimes. I think there are a lot of renderers in the business who think that they know everything & don't want to hear other renderers opinions. You've obviously been doing this for a long time & I appreciate the fact that you hang out here & share with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trhoads Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 My question is; what happened to the wall so sloping and curving tubes, that you spent so much time on? I can not figure out where they are in the scene, and you spent all that time on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cassil Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Personally, I don't think the big guy on the left would have helped balance the composition anyway. For me, the dark wood? on the top and bottom of the left side already offset everything on the right well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 That moire pattern doesn't bother me at all. In fact I like it...add interest, and doesn't look like a problem with the rendering, more like a texture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 My question is; what happened to the wall so sloping and curving tubes, that you spent so much time on? Curved tubes, seen almost at eyelevel = moire. That's them, on the right, giving me so much trouble. The figures are 3D models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 The figures are 3D models. I can't say it is faster to use models, but it was an interesting experiment. It certainly would be useful for animation, though this is one still (still). I started with a male and a female model in a T pose (arms out at the side) and copied and posed them to get my peeps. I have a 'layout' map on each. At some point I will make some more final maps for these. By virtue of them being a UV map, I can swap in any map I want (of a series that align, made from a template of the UVs) at any time. So I can start by just using these generics, than put on the maps later. I started by doing a quick line version (Photoshop processed, but you can just render a hidden-line image) that I printed out and sketched in where I wanted people and approximately how they should be posed. I used that as a guide to placing the 3D models. Doing this kept me from putting in people I wouldn't see, either out-of-frame of mostly hidden by another figure. It also reminded me to not spend much time posing the back ones, since iy won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Having the figures rendered (a very quick material color pass, don't need lighting) I can use my material mask to remove the non-figure stuff and what's left is just where the figures go. I painted over my base maps, which give me an idea of where the body points are for collars and sleeves, as well as a decent basic face. The painting is with initial layers of solid colors, then some careful lights in 'screen' mode and darks in 'multiply' mode. Then, I take the smear tool and mush the paint around to get smooth areas, blend colors, pull darker of lighter areas where want them. Its fun, its like using real paint. I'm not doing any fancy 'painterly' brushes, just the basic Photoshop tools. I own Painter, but never use it. (Hey! Maybe I shoud upgrade from 8 to 9! Then I'ld use it for sure!) The result is below. I then apply the same grain filter as the rest of the rendering, play with contrast and color saturation and finally add some soft shadows under and around the figures (seperate layers, seperate files even, for adding figures). Done. Not quite, the client realized that I only had the old version of the carpet. Re-do the floor material map, re-render the carpet the cut it out using the material mask so it just drops in, pixel-for-pixel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Nothing left but the final as delivered: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Denby Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Well done Ernest. A very clever and well worked technique for your figures. I think the blue on the figures is too saturated though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 I think the blue on the figures is too saturated though. I thought about that, as well, especially the waiter on the right. I can alter it fairly easily, as it's just a layer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
czoog Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Wow, what a wild ride!!! This has been a great thread, thanks for taking us along. The image is fantastic, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 So how would you rate your experience with C4D? And how much easier will it be the next time you use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 So how would you rate your experience with C4D? And how much easier will it be the next time you use it? I feel Cinema has let me down. I found many amazing things about it, I loved it through most of the project. But the rendering process is not OK. I don't know what to do about it, either. I really am getting to like using Cinema, thanks especially to STRAT for helping me so much along the way. But the best things about its output I cannot use on a real project because of time issues. Sure, workarounds, compromises. Life is all about them. But when it comes time to get a damned project buttoned down and rendered, I need something stronger than this. (Rendering, remember, is what we get paid for). Lightscape could do this. Except for those times IT let me down. There is no 'secret weapon', no magic. It's all work, and its just a matter of learning to make the tools do what you need, and accept that they will never be 100% of what you think they should be. Now I wait for Maxwell, and hope it is a better output solution. Or vRay. But for setup, some modeling...Cinema has been great. I may continue to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 End result looks great. It is quite interesting to see the progression. That and I'm amazed you have the patience to post an update here every time something changes! -Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DM Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Well, done Ernest. I bet you are glad it's finished. I think the restaurant itself has come out very well in the end, although my personal preference would be for fewer figures, if any. I'm sorry you are less than happy with C4D. I absolutely love working with it, but our methods are quite different. Until the software or hardware get faster, I wonder whether you really do need radiosity for your technique? Though it is possible that the extra hours needed to render with radiosity could probably be harvested back by some shortcuts in your initial modelling workflow? Anyway, look forward to the next one.. Cheers, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 Well, done Ernest. I bet you are glad it's finished. You have NO idea! Actually, I just took a break from laying like a lump of poo in front of the fireplace to come post the final on cgtalk. I never posted a 'finished work' there, thought I'ld try this one. I wonder whether you really do need radiosity for your technique? Don't burst my bubble. I need my radiosity. Not fakes, real light. That is so I can take the image and turn it into something 'non-photoreal'. Weird, huh? The more realistic the image the better I find it works for non-photo stuff. Next one? Not me! Your turn! How about an exterior, guys and girls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Ernest I actually woke up this morning & one of the first things I thought of was to see the new image. I really found this piece striking. I did not like the people although I like the process you used to place them. I like breaking up the work into pieces that way rerendering is just a redo of an object or an are not a complete image. I would like to work on my next piece and do some sort of log. I think I am more at a stage where it would be completely self serving where I would be fishing for advise and not illuminating the process as well as you have. Treat yourself to a glass/bottle/case of port. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 Ernest I actually woke up this morning & one of the first things I thought of was to see the new image. Well aren't you sweet! Thanks I did not like the people although I like the process you used to place them. Could you explain what you don't like about the people? Personally, I prefer interiors like this one WITHOUT any people, and usually the designer agrees. The client (owner) wanted the people so I had to put them in. I am very pleased with them, except maybe what dibbers pointed out--the blues are a bit hot. How would you (any of you) have tackled the job of adding figures to this rendering? Treat yourself to a glass/bottle/case of port. I have a nice wine for tonight, at least. And a steak. I'm 42 today (3/2), so a little celebrating will be done. 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