a critique please

[lacaci]

the pics look great, the houses are a little small for my taste though... :thumbsup:

[fabmedia]

One (the large one) is a build-it-yourself cabin with all parts and materials supplied. It's about 600 sq.ft. The smaller one is just a garden shed. These are images that were created to test to see if a market exists for these 2 products and for advertising.

I'd really like to hear more about what I can do to improve the images in regards to lighting and such. I'd like to strive for more realism...

Thanks,
Arlen

[Flaggmeister]

Really nice.. I like the wrought iron fence.. Did you model the trees to???

[webfox]

Looks really good. The models are very nice.

Try lowering your diffuse settings on just about all of your surfaces and also reduce the size of the leaves on the trees. The large leaves make the house and shed look like toys.

Keep at it. I think you'll find that photoreal isn't necessary, but that "believable" is.

Looking forward to your updates.

[Injisan]

The texture on the grill is a bit overbearing (bring it down a touch) and the composite of the man in the front feels out of place.

good stuff

[dbach]

I like it, however I totally agree that the leaves need to be smaller, also the small patch of sky lacks depth because there is nothing to give it depth (like a mountain range in the BG or like the trees you used elsewhere in the image). As for the lighting your sky lends itself to be a bright sunny day while the lighting seems to be a bit overcast (except for the front of the shed that seems to have some direct light), but for all I know the sun could be behind a cloud. If you did want to fix it you could reducing the diffuse on the materials like webfox sugested or if they are supposed to be matt (heigh diffuse) matterials you could increase the intensity of the lights.

The image posted shows the sky I talked about.

Nice work and everthing I said is a very small deal and could just be personal preferance.

Out,
Don

[dbach]

I like it, however I totally agree that the leaves need to be smaller, also the small patch of sky lacks depth because there is nothing to give it depth (like a mountain range in the BG or like the trees you used elsewhere in the image). As for the lighting your sky lends itself to be a bright sunny day while the lighting seems to be a bit overcast (except for the front of the shed that seems to have some direct light), but for all I know the sun could be behind a cloud. If you did want to fix it you could reducing the diffuse on the materials like webfox sugested or if they are supposed to be matt (heigh diffuse) matterials you could increase the intensity of the lights.

The image posted shows the sky I talked about.

Nice work and everthing I said is a very small deal and could just be personal preferance.

Out,
Don

[fabmedia]

Yes I highly agree about the flat sky. That is a nother thing from the Eki's Plugpack.

I had modeled everything except the flowers, the bench, and the fence. The grass is a Fur plug-in called Saskwatch. The response is been a lot better than I had anticipated for my first couple of projects. I guess it can only get better from here.

So I'm going to work on the shed and lower the diffuse and make the leaves smaller. I'm going to remodel the trees.

Let me do that and I'll repost. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about the sky though....

A

[fabmedia]

I'm just wondering if anyone would like to part with what they think it should cost to create and illustration like these and the estimated time frame....


Thanks
Arlen

[draconix]

Not sure about the cost frame.

About the sky, maybe add abird or something?

It's pretty good though, the update should be interesting.

[fabmedia]

I've managed to get around to do some fixes for the image...

I took out the 2 trees and increased the diffuse, adjust the lighting and a couple of other things. Let me know what you think....

[cel]

The update is defintly better. I think the textures are hard to see but they look like they should be a higher res and maybe a little more dirty looking. Unless you want a cleaner look. Also maybe some more contrast with the lighting, it looks a little flat. Lookin good. Keep updating. Cel :bounce: :bounce:

[webfox]

Looks better :)

Be very careful about adding dirt and grunge to a sales piece. You want it clean and realistic - you know... "fresh out of the box."

The sky should still be bright and all, just make it fade to white in the horizon to give it depth. Clouds get flatter as they approach the horizon, so you can't have them fluffy *and* low in the sky.

Add some yellow to your lighting. The sun is yellow and this is outdoors. There should be somewhat stronger shadows, so you might want to lower the ambient light settings a bit.

Hope this helps.

[fabmedia]

so would I be right in saying that 100% diffuse is not something to strive for unless it's a naturally bright object? If so, are there some common diffuse percentages for items in general and where can I get this information from?

I'll decrease the ambient, but my only concern about that is that the shadows underneath the roof get really dark. Do you have any suggestions about how to avoid that? I have one light sitting under the building that only affects the building that is being used to compensate the light, but I'm not wanting to boost it too high because of the light affecting the other areas of the building. Damn this gets really confusing at times.

I'll make the light a tad warmer too. I'll get back to you soon...

A

[webfox]

I don't know what software you're using. Can you selectively apply light to surfaces or can you break up your model and have a light from below affect only the underside?

Choose a light color that is consistent with the ground or surrounding material when you shine up from underneath. Green for the grass, maybe a gray one for the stone/ concrete.

Remember that you are trying to simulate bounced light. If that isn't appealing, then use a color of light that is complementary to your object's surface color. In my attached image, I chose a dark purple in this case to complement the orangy wood color.

As far as common diffuse settings, again, I can't say because I don't know what software/renderer you are using.

I use Lightwave and keep things around 65-80% diffuse for most nonmetalic surfaces. Everything is subject to personal choice, though you will find that you get more critical as you try out new things. For example, shiny objects get a much lower diffusion setting. You have to remember that, just as snow isn't white - it's a subtle blend of all the reflected colors of the environment, neither is a colored object just it's own color. Everything picks up from everywhere else.

I did feel that, after playing with your image in photoshop, that you have way too much ambient light and will probably have to test a new lighting setup for your scene.

Check out Digital Lighting and Rendering (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1562059548/qid=1044851219/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8064160-5350548?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and 3D Photorealism Toolkit (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471253464/qid=1044851410/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8064160-5350548) .

While they are not the sole, definitive work out there, they can give you a good start to understanding what you are trying to accomplish.

[fabmedia]

I'm using LW 7.5. I think it's a great software package. Now I'm starting to think that it's a good idea to keep things in separate layers strictly for lighting. Am I wrong to think this? I've now placed a light that affects the building from below (just white right now) and I've set most of the surfaces to 80% and I've noticed that there is a BIG difference in how the lighting affects the scene. These are things that are not mentioned in any books. Which kind of picks me off.

Are you familiar with Eki's Overcaster Plugpak? I'm using that. It's a great thing actually for simulating radiosity and I've had a lot more success with it over some of my own lighting setups (an I'm a hobby photographer – go figure). I have a ambient setting right now of 15% which is what is a different setting than the last image. My curiosity though, isn't ambient light supposed to reduce the intensity of the shadows and allow hidden details appear? I guess I'm wrong but I do know that for a scene to be properly lit in 3d you have to have more than 3 lights when you're outside the typical studio shot.

What else do I need to know?

A

[webfox]

Ambient light doesn't just affect the shadow areas. It affects all things, so it does tend to make an image bland-looking overall.

Don't be pissed about the manuals. On page 31.10 under the definition of "Diffuse" they do tell you that common values are 40-80% and on 32.32 they tell you what is normally used for ambient settings and why the default is so high. They really only tell you how to use the software, not how to do what you want to do, which is to be expected, because there are so many people who want so many different things from their package. For example, I am much more fascinated with animating characters with it, and they sure don't explain the theory to setting up a good rig for a human or a quadruped. They only explain how to get IK to work, you know? Just practice with simple scenes to see how things affect each other. Don't wait 20 minutes for a thumbnail render of ever complex shot you can whip up. ;)

Eki's Overcaster plugin is great, but your sky has a LOT of blue in it. Not really an overcast day. Besides, like you said, you are trying to sell the object, so a cloudy day is definitely a different approach to my way of thinking.

You may have 15 lights or more, each affecting the scene a little in its own way. Be sure to toggle lights off as work through it so that you can start to see their effect with the OpenGL display which will only allow you to view just so many lights in one scene at a time. As you turn off some, the next ones, in order of their being added to the scene, will appear in your display.

You know, I was going to give you a hard time about taking on a large project before you were ready for it, but then I remembered that my first paying 3D job was 30 seconds of animation for a golf club commercial. I was still learning modeler at that point!

Good luck in your project. By the looks of your work, you're well on your way to being successful. :)

[fabmedia]

Yes you are right. I know it's not up to the developer to tell you every little detail of "how to" in any manual and such. I wasn't talking specifically about the LW manual, but they are the only developer that I couldn't understand the manual. ALTHOUGH... I did by LW for my mascot. I did alot of research about the various packages and found that LW was one of the best. So I made my choice and kept with it.

I'll keep plugging away and let you know how things turn out.

cheers mate!
Arlen

[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.