Teapot HDRI rivisited

[michaeli]

good work

[Sergey B]

:) Well)) How long last render?

[ThirdEye]

Only 15 mins on a Dual PIII 1ghz, 512 MB ram ;)

[derwolpertinger]

you are askin'? you know that is is pretty damn good. superrealistic!:thumbsup: the only thing that bugs me a bit is cinema's shitty DOF. you can see like some shiny areas at the top of the teapot, but that's a c4d DOF prob. :( i also have it sometimes. other than that post it in the gallery now. it is worth it!

btw. did you use chanlum for the teapot?

[ThirdEye]

Cinema DOF is bad, I know, I didn't use Chanlum yet, maybe I'll try using it.

[neilyb]

Nice pic. But I would render the pots and the cloth on separately and use PS to create some DOF, that way avoiding the ethereal glow around anything that stands in the way of the blurring....one of my pet hates is DOF in Cinema.....

Otherwise...NICE!:applause:

PS - can anyone tell us if V8 DOF will be better?

[Sergey B]

15 mins :) :) Cool:) :)

[fxgogo]

good stuff. Now where is the tea spilling dynamically over the melting sugarcubes, while steam rises and a bee flys about?

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by neilyb
Nice pic. But I would render the pots and the cloth on separately and use PS to create some DOF, that way avoiding the ethereal glow around anything that stands in the way of the blurring....one of my pet hates is DOF in Cinema.....

Otherwise...NICE!:applause:

PS - can anyone tell us if V8 DOF will be better?

Uhhhm Yes, but nothin to show just yet :/ I'm working on it. Unless someone else beats me to it seen some good stuff being done with it already.

IMO the image needs some work in the area of composition, but very nice results otherwise, very realistic great materials and scene setup, but right now the upper right cup is off in no man' land, and the left cup is almost cradle in the spout of the pot. other than that aesome a great piece to show what a good artist can do in C4D.

[neilyb]

Yep, lighting is good, materials are good but we now need some sugar grains spilt on the table, some saucers maybe...a bit of grime on the cloth......

[pit]

Very nice indeed - i´ll have to crit the texture on the teapot though - the blue calligraphy/paint tex - it looks stretched! I´m with neilyb: needs a more "real life" touch to it. Xlent work anyway!

[kiwi]

Nice :D


I agree with what Kai has said.

The table cloth is from Deepshade right?...dont get me wrong ok its just thats its automatically recognizable.


I think the dof is too extreme,it makes the far cup look further away then it really is,so you have a situation where it confuses the eye because the distance the cup is behind jug is not in keeping with how out of focus it is.


Add some silver ware or something to break up the rest of the composition.Maybe even put a bg object in and place a picture of a kitchen on it or something.


What you are looking for is say the way your kitchen table looks when you sit down at breakfast time etc,use it for reference.


Hope I was not to harsh :)


Stu.

[Grey]

<---still in the dark about what DOF is...

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by Grey
<---still in the dark about what DOF is...

DOF is basically the filed of focus that a lens has, basically when you control the field of focus on a real life lens, the objects in focus will be super nice and crisp in focus, but things far behind or close in front will be blurred and out of focus. Good DOF systems arelens accurate allowing them to do things like light artifacts where you may see a perfect geometric shape on really bright areas that are out of focus, this is created byt the crystaline structure of the lens, often in pentagonal, hexagonal or octagonal refractions. I can't remeber the name of the accurate sytems, (boehr or something like that) but if you look at X-dof you'll se the best dof in the market. still trying to get them to port to C4D.

[ThirdEye]

oh i forgot one thing, i was trying emulating this image:

http://www.softimage.com/Community/Xsi/Galleries/Gal_May02/7.htm

[LucentDreams]

harsh Jpeg compression, and good to see that the dof isn't too great either, (hint, hint) nice image overall, you need more light in your scene and a little higher contrast.

[say-g]

i love the china, very nicely done, no crits atm as they have all been said

[neilyb]

I hope that the DOF in XSI isn't that bad and the compression is killing it? Unless they have various settings, such as DOF: really scattered look....???

[LucentDreams]

lol I think it is mainly the jpeg compression, but I was thinking you know on the nice highlight on the back cup there could be a pentagonal or hexagonal lens artifact or something to add more interest in it and make it more realistic, thats pickyness and probably possible just users choice. (man are my hints subtle )

[neilyb]

Your just picky!:shame:

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by neilyb
Your just picky!:shame:

Not too sure your catching what I am saying though. ;) ;) ;)

[neilyb]

Yes I think I do and you are trying to make out that the C4D renderer isn't all that bad! Or are we saying the the XSI DOF is as bad as C4D......hihihi!

[kiwi]

With dof is it not better to avoid overt depth of field as applied by a camera lens and just use dof for distant objects as the eye would see it?......the human eye percieves dof differently to a camera lens right,I mean we dont see things as that blurry close up,so unless the user is wanting a photo look as opposed to photo realistic detail,does it not make more sense to avoid the camera look?.......what do you guys think :)



Stu.

[kiwi]

Third eye_01 you did a pretty good job of copying that image :thumbsup:



Stu.

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by kiwi
With dof is it not better to avoid overt depth of field as applied by a camera lens and just use dof for distant objects as the eye would see it?......the human eye percieves dof differently to a camera lens right,I mean we dont see things as that blurry close up,so unless the user is wanting a photo look as opposed to photo realistic detail,does it not make more sense to avoid the camera look?.......what do you guys think :)



Stu.

Interesting thinking, and yes you wouldn't want the lens artifacts like that if it was simulating the human eye, of course then you wouldn't have a DOF blur like this either, as our eyes don't blur tings for 2D images, you'll actually have two clean crisp images of whatever object is extremely close (or extremely far) for the eye, in releation to the target focus, you brain simply muddles the information to keep the main oobject in focus. ever look at a flattened out QTVR pan where evrything has that bubble effect, this is how our eyes actually percive things two, but you brain muddles things in the peripheral vision to help orientate and focus on things.

Try focusing on someting in your peripheral vision, now close one eye and see how much more focus you have of whatever you were looking at, the brain has less information to sot of muddle in there so the image is clearer than before.

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by neilyb
Yes I think I do and you are trying to make out that the C4D renderer isn't all that bad! Or are we saying the the XSI DOF is as bad as C4D......hihihi!

neither, I am trying to predict the future perhaps? (think carefully though I have no image to show this yet.)

[kiwi]

Ya that makes sense Kai :)



Ah ok so your hinting the the new dof setup is greatly improved over the old?
:) ...are there any new 8 dof images anywhere yet we can look at? {cant blame me for trying}


Stu.

[Erik Heyninck]

In fact, the problem is even more complicated. A few of the greatest painters of European culture, like Raphael and Ingres observed that we have two eyes, and that those two eyes are placed at a certain distance from one-another. Because of this, both eyes do not get the same information and we can see depth. So apart from atmospheric effects (colours weaken when they are further away, but not all weaken in the same degree) and mathematical perspective (which is only an approximation and in reality distorts near the edges), we have a sharp or a blurred edge.
When an object has a rounded form, both eyes will see a different edge, and this gives a slightly blurred effect. When the edges are sharp, both eyes can see the same sharp edge, and the object stays sharp.
When you look at an Ingres painting for example, you can observe that a finger has slightly blurred adges, but the knuckle and the nail a little less. The ring on the finger is sharp as a razorblade.
This effect can also be simulated by making two images from a slightly different angle, like Dali made his 3D paintings.
But no single lens/point of view app can ever do this.

Apart from this, Stu is absolutely right that a camera lens is not a human eye.

[neilyb]

Okay, so I'm slow....either that or your cryptic!

I would say, to get a real DOF effect (which should be called focus) you would have to kind of blur a little and have two overlapping backgrounds....as both eyes get out of focus at different angles........way too complex.....lets just blurstuff and be happy!

[ThirdEye]

I believe that CGI aim is PHOTOrealism, we have to simulate a camera look, not human eye look.

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
I believe that CGI aim is PHOTOrealism, we have to simulate a camera look, not human eye look.

Thats pretty much what we were saying, you can try to simulate the eye but you can never get it, a PHOTOrealistic image on the other hand can be done. Another issue you run into trying to simulate realworld over PHOTO worls is th fact that what we see with our eyes at onetime in acutal focus is pretty limited, when you look at an image the majority of the image is in your eyes focus, which means you can see more in focus thatn you would in reality.

[neilyb]

I personally believe in what is pleasing to the eye.....forget photrealism.....lets make what looks good!

[Erik Heyninck]

I agree with NeilyB, but needless to say that someone else can have a different opinion that is as good as mine.
In the beginning, photography imitated painting but never reached its goal. Then it became an art in itself with its own set of values, limits and possibilities. Now 3D digital tries to imitate photography, while photography in itself never can approach reality the way we perceive it (see my previous entry). Of course it demands an enormous skill to create photorealistic scenes in 3D digital, but to me this is not the aim, but rather a station on the way towards the ultimate goal, which is real independant digital art. So, to me too, pleasing the eye and activateing the spectator's imagination seem to be more important than a perfect render of what a camera would capture, because I prefer to use a camera for that.
As for the selective blur: I suppose this can be simulated in an app like Photoshop or Painter, which means postwork.

[ThirdEye]

http://www.frischluft.com/ I also tried this to improve my bad DOF... nothing changed even if this small photoshop and after fx plug-in looks awesome for his infinite possibilities. :shrug:

[kiwi]

Try using a multi PSD and select a depth channel and use it to achieve a dof effect :)



A quick crude way that sometimes is ok if you are in a hurry is to make a copy of your bg layer in PS, Gblur your copied layer just enough so that the background objects look distant,then add a layer mask and use a gradient of foreground to background and black on the layer mask and you get selectively reducing blur over distance or a dof effect,but its not hugely accurate :)


Stu.

[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.