Still: New England house in 1841

[sean_G]

i think your rendition of CG elements is well executed, to the point of photo-realism. the overall compostion is very atmospheric and superbly macabre in its subtleties. an excellent still frame example of an opulent and decadent, horror genre environment with a nice "cinematic-twist" on the camera angle.
---i think youre overall effect is both strong and well refined, with a heady ambient-aesthetic.

though i think a Hi-8 aspect ratio might look interesting with this piece. nice work

[bigB]

Looks very very good...

nice lightning

the only bad thing I can see at ones is the NOISE :thumbsdow

get rid of it and it's a great one:thumbsup: :cool:

[anticz]

Fantastic. Nice triangle composition (moon, floor, desk). Great render quality. Very creepy. Love the dutch tilt on the camera. Makes it feel out of sorts and scary. Very well don. 5 stars *plop*

[Alderian]

i think you could have a tad less noise. Other than that 5 stars

[FranckSitbon]

Really impressive!!!!
Could you post some info, like a wire top view with lights positions
Really like to see other views of your house
Great job
Five stars too
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[pabbloz]

yes!. It's a well done job. Really great atmosphere.
But for me it's too much grain noise.
I suggest you a litlle more of contrast in the colors and I think the scene need some more details-bevels. For example, the square floor would be better with a bit more of bump, and the maps on the wall (a little difference between the blue part and the broken one)....

But in general is great, just the bump-bevel details and the black... more black ;) :thumbsup:

I almost forget it! :eek: where is the spider-net? :applause:

[dark_lotus]

I love it.

I think the mood works really well here.

[Ech0]

the over all composition looks good but i think it would look even better if you would lose the grain effect at least tone it down . to me it makes the peice unclear . Other then that looks good .

[Trilabite]

I Like the noise, but it may be a little to much

Love the camera angle.

It's an exellent compsition!:thumbsup:

[Jhonus]

Mmmm.. the noise does messy things up a little... but I think your heading down the right track in terms of going for an older film quality look. You just need to do more research into what the qualities are that makes a film look old.

Try going to www.archive.org and looking at some old films.

[DSedov]

here is just my opinion on how it should look. I think composition is very cinematic but the picture is flat without interesting or mystical areas. Here is some color correction plus a little play with levels to explain what I mean. Also in your case gray bars flatens out the image too. Black bars add more contrast to the picure with bright spots.

[FranckSitbon]

I not agree with you Dsedov, your pic is too much contrasted and saturated. and its too dark too.
For the grain, if you watch Starwars you'll see that grain is added to all cg so that it look like more integrated with real characters.

[GRMac13]

I agree with DSedov about changing the border bars to black. However for the image itself, I wouldn't make it as dark as DSedov did, but I WOULD darken it a bit. I just think that if you darken it TOO much you'll obscure all that great detail. Also, as most others said, tone down the noise. OR, instead of just adding a noise filter in Photoshop, whynot make your own noise texture? You could add things such as dust and hairs by painting them on a seperate layer, or if you don't want to spend all that time painting, shoot a piece of glass with dust and hairs on it against a flat color that can be keyed out...(just thought of that one, gotta see if it worx). :p

[dmcgrath]

I can agree with all the above statements so far. You should increase the dark areas a bit more. If a camera had actually taken this shot, there would be much more contrast. This is what it would look like if you were actually there, the human eye can adjust levels of dark and light to balance them (somewhat).And the grain is too heavy. As soon as you can, try to stop using Photoshops filters. It won't look so static

[gL_spear]

Lovely image bentarr... If you want to increase the darker area and still have good contrast try duplicating the layer in Photoshop and adding a 'Screen' effect to the duplicated layer in the layers palette, then take that layer down to about 50% opacity. :)

[katlis]

I also like to to provide a visual example when it comes to adding suggestions. :D

A bit more contrast, with some intensified & blured softlight layers.
http://www.tps-racing.com/jeff/house1.jpg

And also, I think this scene looks great monochromatic. :)
http://www.tps-racing.com/jeff/house2.jpg

[santiago]

I like the very first one more, but at the same time I also like the darker shadows of the second one, I would combine the darker shadows of the second one with the low saturation of the first.
I don't think that photorealism is the word to describe this image... to me it looks more like an illustration, like, I dunno, maybe like an air-brush painted movie poster perhaps?
Which to me is really cool. The overall feel of it is interesting. It could be a great poster, very photographic. I can imagine a shady character appearing at the door, with his shadow cast into the room... and the grass waved by a light breeze, somewhat suspensful...

Good job! :thumbsup:

[digitaldamage]

:eek: Wow. Wow. Wow!
I would like to thank you all for the great and constructive replies!

DSedov, funny that you mentioned the contrast problem. Truth is, i´ve had problems with that since i worked on this picture. In the beginning, it was too dark. Later, it was too bright. One source of the problem is that everyone uses different brightness/contrast settings on their monitors. Result was that i tried to get the middle of both worlds.

(I think that you do not have this problem with a daylight image. They will only appear a little bit darker or a little bit brighter. But with an image similar to a night sutiation, the following will happen:
1. Too dark. The details will dissappear. (as GRMac13 said)
2. Too bright. Will look flat and may loose atmosphere due to reduced horribleness -in this case.
It´s a thin line, and i do not know how to solve this problem. If anyone got an idea... please tell me! )

However, most if the comments have one common denominator:
Too much grain. And at the same time, more black areas.

katlis, your modification looks great! Much more cinematic.

santiago,
I can imagine a shady character appearing at the door, with his shadow cast into the room... and the grass waved by a light breeze, somewhat suspensful...
:thumbsup: The animation... arrgh. Old problem: more time.

Franck Sitbon, i will add a wireframe top view and a derivative picture as soon as i get the time and got home.

[pabbloz]

I like very much the katlis's first image. I think is the best taste for this scene, and also I'm agree in change the two lines (the wide film lines up and bottom) in black color. This will be the reference for all people of what is really black. :rolleyes:

err... what about the bump-bevels? :hmm:

[Leydecker]

hi bentarr,

can you post your originally rendered layers as they were
before combining them in photoshop ?

Personally I miss some depth of field effect, instead your
entire image looks a slight bit blurred or soft. As if it was
rendered entirely using lowrez dmap shadowmaps.
Raytracing (at least in Maya) instantly makes images sharper.

Also, I miss reflections on the floor and the woodworks,
at least subtile ones to add depth(or better dimension).
Not simply more shininess/specular hotspots but areas not
entirely covered with dirt that still can slightly reflect their
environment.

For the camera, it´s a bit too wideangle to look real, the
door´s perspective distortion distracts my *willingess to believe*.
Maybe that´s simply the position.

Even more realism will probably come with adding small debris
and bits of wallpaper hanging off.

I don´t like the grain. and even if it the reduced saturation
is physically logic for the human eye -on photofilm even at
night a lot of color should turn out. at least saturated shadows.
You can try this by using colorbalance and simply play around.
for a layout.


cheers

tim

P.S: kudos for pulling this off.

[puddlefish]

I like the original better than any of the reworkings. The fact that the noise detracts from the clarity is a good thing in this case, as it adds to the atmosphere. It reminds me of Silent Hill a lot, especially the PS2 version. The scariest thing about that was the parts you couldn't see.

Also, I think the lower contrast of the first picture lends itself well to a kind of ghostly atmosphere, having some of the qualities of a faded photograph.

The original one is great, the other versions, while well executed, are a little too dramatic for my liking, in a scene that is much more powerful for its sombre appearance.

Hope this helps

[facial]

It's full of emotions , i realy love it , keep post.
:applause: :applause:

[DSedov]

Tim Leydecker: With a lense that wide there wouldnt be any depth of field effect.

[Bionic Antboy]

I agree with DSedov, no DOF. It's the lens flare of the 21st century, and used a LOT in places it shouldn't be.

Other than that, it's a great image. I like the slightly higher contrast version better. And I think the grain is fine, for atmosphere, but it would be interesting to see a cleaner version as well. Very much a Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil, classic Lovecraftian setting. You can feel the ghouls outside.

As for brighness levels, don't try and make it acceptable to everyone's monitor. Just make sure your monitor is set up as accurately as possible, and render to that. Anyone who says the image is too black, or describe colors inaccurately should really fix their monitor, not expect someone to accomodate their poor settings :)

Great composition.

Doug

[digitaldamage]

Well, i´m still at work, so i cannot post any image.
As to the original layers. They were not really two separate layers. I used the rendered image as a background in Max and over this, i rendered the volume light/fog. So imagine the whole thing without the things mentioned above and a good bit darker.

The resolution of the shadowmaps nearly changes with every light. Hi-res and low-res, all present. But i think you´re right with the reflections. Problem is, i can´t get them to work the way i want them to. :shrug:

pabbloz, i did not missed your post. I can see what i can do with the bump maps. The viewing angles are already pretty small in some cases.

The lower contrast respectively the gray areas are/were on purpose. This is an result of the fog (for additional depht). Not abolutely sure how to handle this...

Thank you all for the comments.

[Leydecker]

@dSedov yupp, it´s too wide to show much of a dof effect.
But still, I think it would help if there where slight variations in
sharpness, just to lead the eye a bit. I do use fake blurring alot:)

@bentarr maybe you can render out a seperate reflectionpass
in Max, add it in photoshop erase here and there and just play
around before you try to recreate it for an upcoming animation.
Thats how i do it, lot´s of cheap and sluggish tests in a paintapp.
Just because it´s nice to have *realtime* feedback.

cheers

tim

P.S: and I do vote against the grain :-)

[dmcgrath]

The fact that the noise detracts from the clarity is a good thing in this case, as it adds to the atmosphere. stated by Puddlefish

I do agree that the grain is a really good thing for this picture. Once again IMO, there is just too much. Add to the fact that it was just a preset filter in Photoshop, one click and you are done, experinced PShop eyes will easily pick-up on that kind of thing. I say keep the grain, but use about three or four times less.

[slime]

Hi!
I think the camera angle and composition is brilliant.
The ways to improve the image I think had been already said.
Less grain (only about 33% less). And a little more contrast. But only little adjustements. I like the "desaturated" look and the sharpness of the image.

to dmcgrath:

I think photoshop filters are not so evil. specially the simple ones. How are you suppose to add the grain? pinting pixel by pixel? ;) Imagine to fake a blur o sharpen fx by hand! :surprised

It's a joke; don't flame me please :)

Good luck!

[digitaldamage]

You wanted a wireframe. There you go...

In case you wonder about the seemingly useless high polycounts in parts; there should be an animation, err, hopefully not too far in the future.

http://home.t-online.de/home/320032143920-0001/grafik/legacy_wire001.jpg

http://home.t-online.de/home/320032143920-0001/grafik/legacy_wire002.jpg

[one more thing: as slime already said: how would you add "unique" grain aside from the possibilitie of paint scratches and such manually or the method GRMac13 suggested?]


Later...

[Leydecker]

... but how about restricting the effect to only where the lightfog
is visible, as if there where small dirtparticles in the air...
...and a small amount in the other areas too, just enough to
mix up flat areas a bit.


tim


P.S: not that it´s my decision.

[digitaldamage]

[Edit: I´ve read the messages before the forum crash. Thanks for the comments]

AshmisT, you´re right. It must be the FOV. The door was closed. I "opened" it later.

dmcgrath, thanks for the noise examples! Your grain is more subtle and fractal.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.