WIP: Digital Art

[rayz]

Nice that looks very real...... I like the boots especially :beer:

[pit]

Hi Adam - that looks really GREAT! Two minor things: the glass is maybe a tad to green (or my screen is off!). The DirtyNuts grime on the boots is, imo, to much - could do without. Other than that - ace. :buttrock:

[astrofish]

Very nice work Adam!

About the only thing that looks a bit wrong to me is the glass jar. The top (air-filled) half has a definite green tint, and looks like it has thick walls, but the bottom half doesn't seem to have either...

Have you used the same refractive index for the glass as for the water by any chance?

Other than that, I really like it. Good composition.

I assume the mouse is in the water to rinse the excess pixels out before they set?

Cheers - Steve

[kromekat]

:thumbsup:

Very impressive!, especially the boots! - I would personally tone the dirtynuts level down, and use more rays to make them finer in detail, but other than that, it's rather special! :applause:

[michaeli]

Cool! The glass and the boot seem so real! Very photorealistic!

[JoelOtron]

Looking realy hard for something to nitpick and I cant find any!

Awesome work Adam.

[artemesia66]

looks good, adam. i really like the concept.

the boots are great, although i agree about the dirtynuts being too much/too grainy. how did you do the laces? is that a sweep nurbs, or solidspline, or what?

<nitpick>the edge of the turpentine can seems a bit too shiny to me--more like silver than steel.</nitpcik>

nice work.

[AdamT]

Thanks everyone. I agree that the dirynuts is a little too much--will tone that down. Regarding the glass, the green tint is intentional, as it's supposed to be an older/antiquey Ball jar. These actually come in a variety of colors.

The walls issue is a tough one. I find that lathing a full walled glass and filling it never looks quite right, because the walls are too apparent in the filled portion. What I did was lathe the glass and water as one spline, so there are no walls where the liquid is. Unfortunately this does seem to have changed the color--I guess because there are only two levels of transparency instead of four. I think I'll try putting a slightly darker tex on the liquid part.

The rim of the can is too shiny--thanks Artemesia66.

[ODoul]

Very nice, no critique from me, everyone else has seemed to cover it pretty well. Pat yourself on the back, boy, you done good. -- 3d_e

[astrofish]

Originally posted by AdamT
The walls issue is a tough one. I find that lathing a full walled glass and filling it never looks quite right, because the walls are too apparent in the filled portion.


I suppose that with a seperate water object, floating point errors could end up causing 'air gaps'/overlap between the glass and the water, which would be quite noticeable. Is this the problem you've been having? (An easy test would be to set both to the same refractive index, and see if there is still a visible edge)

If so, have you tried making the water mesh part of the same object as the glass (separate meshes and materials, with duplicated verts/polys where they meet, but same object)? This should prevent (or at least much reduce) any floating point errors since vertex positions in 3D space would be calculated in exactly the same way both times.

On the other hand I may be totally wrong, and the problem is nothing to do with that... (Can't test it at the moment).

Cheers - Steve

[wesware]

Very nice Adam!

Concerns:
1. Dirtynuts on boots is too black and grainy.
2. Not sure what it is but the jar may be a little to clear, or bright?
3. Where the wood grain on the top of the table meets the bark on the edge is to straight, should be a little roughed up.
4. The boot/shoes seem just a tad shallow or short. Might just be nitpicking here.

This is a great job, Adam. Did you learn alot? I am anxious to see what this does for all your future works.

[Wilson-3d]

Over all a great pic. I wont repeat what has been said except wesware's comment:

3. Where the wood grain on the top of the table meets the bark on the edge is to straight, should be a little roughed up.

That is the main thing I thought odd.

Great Job!

[bobtronic]

Hi Adam,

Really nice pic. The boots are very realistic as the
whole scene. One thing which disturbs me really
is the glass. It looks to much CG and little bit composed.
Peronally I would drop the glass as it doesn't have
the same quality as the rest of your scene.

happy rendering, Bob

[pupii]

Originally posted by wesware


1. Dirtynuts on boots is too black and grainy.
2. Not sure what it is but the jar may be a little to clear, or bright?
3. Where the wood grain on the top of the table meets the bark on the edge is to straight, should be a little roughed up.
4. The boot/shoes seem just a tad shallow or short. Might just be nitpicking here.


I am totally agree with wesware.
one more comment: the bacground too blurry and lowres, totally destroy the foreground. change!

This is a great job, Adam!:thumbsup:

pupi

[mimo8]

one more idea:

the rough leather of the boot could have some fuzzes - just on the corner / horizont. at that level of detail you would see the leather-fuzz I suppose

great img :applause:

[flingster]

adam this is friggin awesome...top top work bud.

my only comment is the background bit on the left...maybe its what pupi said to low res...but i kinda messes with dof side..because the left is blurred but the right is more in focus..confuses the eye a little..i don't have the tech knowledge on how to advise you though..maybe slight dof focus should be more pronounced on central part of image eg glass jar in focus rest slightly out....but goddamn it man...this is picky picky picky stuff...cos its so damn impressive.
only sorry i can't be a bit clearer on what i'm talking about really..trying to be constructive ..:shrug:

TOP JOB BUD:bowdown: :bowdown:

[AdamT]

Thanks for the additional suggestions and compliments (and from my idol Puppi no less!). I've done an update which I think addresses all or most of the concerns that have been raised. Whether it fixes them I don't know, but it addresses them. :)

I think the dof is a little too strong now, what do you guys think? Progress is a little painstaking at about 1hr./render.

Someone asked about the shoelaces earlier. They are one loft nurbs. It was a little tedious threading that spline, but not too terrible. I added a bit of geometry at the end to make less regular there.

And Wes, yep I think I've learned a fair bit on this one--mostly about dealing with HDRI and radiosity. In this last version I ended up using three sky objects with the same HDRI at different brightness levels: brightest for GI, middle for rays, and darkest for the background image.

Enough blabbing: http://www.3danvil.com/Mason013.jpg

[bobtronic]

Hi Adam,

That looks definite better - I mean that looks great.
It has now more depth. I would maybe lift the camera
slightly to give the objects also more depth, especially
the glass and the terpentine cup, but I guess that is
only a question of taste.

keep on

Bob

[kromekat]

Bloody marvellous! :) :buttrock:

DOF may be a little too much, but hey, it might be perfect, it's a subjective thing!

:)

[Pate]

Very nice!

I can't help it, but the lack of reflections from the boots and the can on the glass bottle really bothers me in this image. I am tempted to take out real physical items like these and arrange them on the table to make sure there really should not be no noticeable reflections on the glass bottle. :)

Must be just my personal problem as nobody else has mentioned this, so feel free to ignore this!

Pate

[flingster]

like this one a lot better....it suddenly makes you realise how hard images like these are...the smallest of details the human eye picks up on...thats why i think its so damn good because of the type of comments people are making...not this model is not perfect or whatever...but minute details...this really is more a complement to your achievement than a comment on the work..imho of course.
good job bud...:thumbsup:

[wesware]

Ok Adam,

This is looking pretty damn good! Well done.
There are a few compositional nit-picky things that you can take or leave.

The boot on the left... it's toe lines exactly on the edge of the mouse in the jar. I would turn the boot inwards just a little bit more to overlap the very edge of the mouse. Or you could move the jar a little back left out of center frame just a hair.
And, the can on the right bothers me a little. It's lip lines up with the thread line on the boot as well as exactly with the edge of the easel. The right edge of the can is to close to the outer edge IMO. I would bring it in and forward just a little bit.

:thumbsup: doooooooooood

[AdamT]

Thanks Flingster. The devil really is in the details when you are going for photorealism.

And thanks Wes. I agree with your comments. In order to deal with the lowrez BG image I had to truck the camera in and zoom out to get more of the BG in the frame. Of course doing that threw off the composition a little bit and caused some of the issues you point out.

[pupii]

Hi Adam

Much better, and better.
one more : the turpentin label not correct. top edge ok, bottom distorted.

pupi

[JoelOtron]

:beer:

Great work! Much better!

I didnt say anything before, but the only thing that reallybothered me was the bright area in the upper left backround--felt it drew your attention there too much. You seemd to have figured that out yourself--as there is now a nice dark area there that contasts well with the shoe--pushing it forward a bit. The composition/arrangement seems to have improved as well. I love the nice hot white highlight along the left side of the jar against the white fluffy clouds i the background. Very impressive.

One question--was it intentional to make the front of the wood block covered with bark? In reality, if it were the trunk of a tree, the tree would have been awfully wide for there to not be any apparent curving (not too many trees with a flat straight side to them). And the wood grain would parrallel the bark forming the concentric loops. I could see you having done this on purpose though just to add another visual trick. (?)

[AdamT]

Originally posted by JoelD
:beer:

Great work! Much better!

I didnt say anything before, but the only thing that reallybothered me was the bright area in the upper left backround--felt it drew your attention there too much. You seemd to have figured that out yourself--as there is now a nice dark area there that contasts well with the shoe--pushing it forward a bit. The composition/arrangement seems to have improved as well. I love the nice hot white highlight along the left side of the jar against the white fluffy clouds i the background. Very impressive.

One question--was it intentional to make the front of the wood block covered with bark? In reality, if it were the trunk of a tree, the tree would have been awfully wide for there to not be any apparent curving (not too many trees with a flat straight side to them). And the wood grain would parrallel the bark forming the concentric loops. I could see you having done this on purpose though just to add another visual trick. (?)

Thanks Joel. As usual the great comments from this board really helped to make this a better pic.

Regarding the bark, well the bitmap I used is actually an old weathered plank with mostly worn off paint on it. I sort of like it, but I think I'm in the minority there. My idea was that the pedestal is sort of a wood cube made from a large tree, with the rounded parts planed off. Obviously that doesn't work if the sides look like bark. Someone suggested that I should not have the front edge of the pedestal showing at all. Thoughts about that?

[JIII]

geez pupi notices those details.

Anyway man top quality this is a killer killer peice of work great job man.

[JoelOtron]

Originally posted by AdamT
s look like bark. Someone suggested that I should not have the front edge of the pedestal showing at all. Thoughts about that?

Hmmmm. My first thought was to get rid of it thinking the grain of the wood on the surface would pull your eye into the image more. But I actually kinda like the edge as it is---i think it looks good--I was just commenting on the real-life bark problem--which you clarified. I cropped it on my end and I prefer it with the edge--having the edge kind of grounds the image a bit. I say keep it.

[JoelOtron]

Hey Adam--just read wes's post and I agree with a lot of it. The issue here is just perfecting a really nice composition. I add ed some notes to your image which you could read or ignore. Here are my 2 cents (http://joeldubin.net/my2cents.jpg).

[AdamT]

Originally posted by JoelD
Hey Adam--just read wes's post and I agree with a lot of it. The issue here is just perfecting a really nice composition. I add ed some notes to your image which you could read or ignore. Here are my 2 cents (http://joeldubin.net/my2cents.jpg).
Thanks Joel, that's great! I'm going to do pretty close to what you and Wes suggest. My concern was not blocking too much of the panel/easel, which would ruin the narrative aspect of the image, but I think I can tighten things up still. Also cutting down a little on the dof strength will help in that regard. Thanks again.

[anobrin]

please forgive my modeling ignorance:blush:
but how was the raised writing on the glass done??

a relief object??

if so how did you wrap it around the jar
thanks:thumbsup:

[AdamT]

Originally posted by anobrin
please forgive my modeling ignorance:blush:
but how was the raised writing on the glass done??

a relief object??

if so how did you wrap it around the jar
thanks:thumbsup:

Just a simple bump map!

[chromecity]

Wow, Adam, that's real nice. :bowdown:

Only a couple of comments...

When I first looked at it, the bottom of the can seemed as if it was hovering a bit above the table on the left side. Zooming in, I can see that it's because (as someone else mentioned) the rims of the can are so shiny, they're almost like perfect mirrors. And that causes the wood texture to appear to blend right into the highly reflected wood texture, which makes it difficult for the eye to determine where the wood ends and the can begins. I imagine dirtying up the bottom rim a bit more would make the hovering illusion less pronounced.

And speaking of mirrors... ...and this is real nit-picky... ...it's pretty obvious that the left shoe is merely a perfect mirror of the right shoe. Since the materials have noticeable blotches on them, it doesn't take long to see that they are mirrored. You might want to do something to the material on one that makes it different than the other. And that's only appropriate - whenever you find your mouse submerged in a mason jar, it's always a good idea to re-boot. :cool:

But of course overall, that's one very impressive image. Kudos.

Regards,

Jeff Andrews
Chrome City Studios

[Ibox]

front page material for sure there Adam :bowdown:

Wow how I like this DA you have created, not that it really matters what I thinx, but non the less koudo's deseverdly so... awesome stuff dude, I am inspired to say the least :thumbsup:

[AdamT]

Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure if you saw the link to the updated image, in which I dirtied up the can rims considerably. But it still looks a little floaty and I have to look into why that is. I think the GI may be passing through the interior of the can, which is one-sided geometry. Regarding the shoe--what can I say--you guys don't miss a thing! And Pupi picking up the label problem.... Well, that's a good thing.

Hi Ibox,
Thanks very much!

[chromecity]

I'm not sure if you saw the link to the updated image, in which I dirtied up the can rims considerably.You're correct, Adam - I didn't see the link to the update image when I wrote my post. But I found it now. And it certainly doesn't exhibit the same amount of floating appearance in the updated version. I'd say that issue is taken care of there.

I also prefer the way the image is framed and items are positioned in the updated version (013). I thought the boot on the right looked like it was going to fall off of the table-top the way things were laid out earlier.

You've done one helluva good job on that image. :)

[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.