View Full Version : nhmchallenge David Edwards

04 April 2007, 03:57 PM
Hey guys,

Well not sure if i can really be an entrant myself but i'm going to have a play and see what i come up with :)

I'll be going along with the jungle theme, lots of water, plants, rocks, tree, vines etc .. very tropical, and hopefully get a little camera movement.

So far i've started with the plate and begun to remove the people and signs etc ... it's a tricky one! silly me :) I'll post up where i get tonight.

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 01:27 AM
Hi guys,

Here's where i am tonight, work in progress for stage 1...

I've started to prepare the plate by first removing the people (a few still left :-) and toning the artificial lighting down a little. A few areas i'm not going to worry too much about because i know that later on i will be adding rocks and follage around the floor. So far i've just basically cut, paste and patched the people out.

Hey, is it possible to do rollover images in a post? (before and after kinda thing?)

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 02:48 AM
sweet stuff so far david! but slow down man! its going to take use a month to catch up to you already! ;)


04 April 2007, 03:39 AM
Nice, I dred this part. I know, I know it has to be done, the dirty work so that art can be born. :). To some people it will be a great exercise to do that. I'm already curious how the beginners will do.

04 April 2007, 08:56 AM
Good start, hmmm Im gonna do a 3d approach since I will have to build a model for the reprojection anyway so I may skip the tedious work like removing the people and go right on to the tedious work of architectual modeling.

BTW you can do a rollover in image ready by creating an animated gif and have it flip back in forth, not exactly what your looking for but I dont think that kinda of html code works in here.

04 April 2007, 11:06 AM
Hey guys,


Cheers mate, i just want to push ahead slightly so people can get an example of what needs to be done :)


Yeh it's the arss work that comes first :)

I'm already curious how the beginners will do

Yeh, good point. I gave a lot of thought to this and in the end i came to the conclusion that this contest had to be more about the real world job of a matte painter and not just painting a pretty environment. I wanted the new guys to understand the difference between a simple painting and a matte painting, and mainly that it IS a challenge. I think the first two stage will possibly be the most important...

Which brings me nicely to RiKToR :) skipping the first stage, tut tut :) I can't wait to see how you will end up projecting the image without removing the people, that i've got to see :thumbsup: Though as this starts to get a little more official i think you may need to complete each stage if you wish to submit on the 2nd June.

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 11:24 AM
ugghhh... I guess I could do it in order, but since I was going to model it any way I figured I would just use 3d replacement for the ground area.

04 April 2007, 12:59 PM
Hey Riktor, check out the response to the other post you made in the challenge thread. You made a better case in there :)

04 April 2007, 04:55 PM
oy, one question though.
can we resize it? i mean, i am used to working with 1080HD
but this beast is over 3000 high. what is the minimum size for the final submission?
when we're uploading steps they're barely 1000 if at all. so any thought on that?

04 April 2007, 05:12 PM
:thumbsup:go David go :thumbsup: :bounce:
going good so far!

04 April 2007, 05:57 PM

Resolution is your choice, feel free to size as you like :)


You can't get away that easily :) i'm still hoping you'll get a chance to join in :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 04:53 PM
Hey guys, well i finally got a few minutes to progress my own attempt. Please see:

This is a rough of the final crop ...

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 05:43 PM
Hi Dave,
the composition looks really nice. How did you managed to render those pillars to the right? Copy-pasted from original and overpainted?

04 April 2007, 06:16 PM
Cheers mate,

Regarding the pillar, you pretty much just said it :) it's a render, of the 3d kind. I just created a few really simple cylinders and placed a simple brick texture on them, nothing fancy but they seem to work ok. colour matched them in photoshop.

I was just thinking about photoshop CS3, i wonder how that will help for matte painters with the incorporating of 3d now in photoshop itself, for things like that pillar i'm imagine you wont need to go out to a 3d program.

For anyone who doesn't have a 3d program i can highly recommend blender, it really is amazing and best of all it's free; a great tool for matte painters and with ambient occusion even better :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 06:54 PM
I like what you did with that column in the near foreground gives more depth , well done so far hope to see some killer detail there :buttrock:

04 April 2007, 07:22 PM
Cheers Jaime, my servers blinked out again, guess it can't handle high capacity bandwidth.

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 10:02 PM
That column is a great way to cover the right side that is quite bad in the picture, well done!:thumbsup:

I Like how you're going to crop it.


04 April 2007, 10:18 PM
nice 3D cylinders

04 April 2007, 10:25 PM
Yep, took me all day to create them cylinders. (joking :))

04 April 2007, 04:01 AM
Well i'm kinda going 1 steps forward and 2 steps back with this one :)

04 April 2007, 08:13 AM
I admire the plate and technique.

04 April 2007, 05:15 PM
Dave you projected it in 3d and then got it back in photoshop or just started with the 3d setup beside ? Looking very nice! nice idea to add the collumn. Its giving the scene even more scale.

There are 3 skeletons sitting on a piece of wood on the left side under the ceiling . I didn't see it myself until I removed the lamps up there. ;)

04 April 2007, 06:39 PM
Yeh i noticed the skeletons too, wasn't too sure if that's what they were.

Ok, so this is kind of where i'm going with this, a little confusing as it seems...

I created the original clean plate and then took it into 3d for cam projection setup, trouble was that it was a pain in the butt to match up so i decided to set up a simple cude roughly the same shape as the building and matched that as close as possible, i then rendered the wireframe took that into photoshop and cut the original image back up, which i'm now in the process of correcting to the cube in photoshop, so hopefully when i take it back into 3d it will match the cube bang on .... in theory :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 11:54 PM
Fast progress there Dave. I've not really done too many cam projs, is it more advantageous to set that up at this stage rather than wait till you've finalised your 'weathered' concept or either way it doesnt make much difference? Presumably some of the structure will be missing later, will that require additional projections for the revealed background?

04 April 2007, 12:09 AM
Hey Cameo,

To be honest cam projection is still something that i struggle to understand and thought i'd use this opportunity to try and crack the techniques. At the moment i just wanted to setup a basic 3d scene and get the camera matching the general scene. This might not be the right way and you're probably right i might end up causing myself problems later down the line. We'll see how it goes :)

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 04:34 AM
Ok, so here's a real crude and simple cam projection of the above image: (1.5mb)

I'm a little unsure if it'll work out this way but i'm kinda doing this in reverse slightly. I'm sorting out the basic cam proj now, at least the basics and then i'll come back to put in the creative candy, and then back again to tune the cam proj and back and forth ... i think.

We'll see :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 08:41 AM
Looks good Dave, even with the gaps and such you can still get a flavour of the move. Maybe it is better this way, since you could potentially cover up problem areas with the weathered features rather than worry about it being a perfectly cleaned, perfectly aligned plate.

04 April 2007, 10:19 AM
that works really well, is that as much movement as you can get away with or do you think that you could do more? I'm wondering about problems with the "flatness" of the geometry when you move too much...I've not done much projection mapping myself.

BTW what are you doing the 3d in?

04 April 2007, 11:45 AM
Cheers Cameo, i'll just work at it and see how it goes.

that works really well, is that as much movement as you can get away with or do you think that you could do more? I'm wondering about problems with the "flatness" of the geometry when you move too much...I've not done much projection mapping myself.

BTW what are you doing the 3d in?

Cam projection has it's limits but can still be pushed very far, what i did was just a very simple test to see how the basics held together. At the moment i'm just projecting onto a simple box but once i start progressing the ideas i'll go in and model the pillars, extrude the passages etc, it doesn't have to be too complex to pull off a realistic effect, but as it stands now you're right there's still a bit more modelling to be done. You'd be really surprised at how many visual effects are done with camera projections these days, and equally how simple the geometry looks when you see the breakdown.

I'll refine a little more tonight.

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 12:39 PM
Nice Camera move! Can't wait to see how you deal with the paralax. There's at least half a dozens hidden regions that become visible with even a simple camera move, its going to need a lot of painting.

04 April 2007, 01:35 PM
Cheers laxmanp,

Yep i've dug myself right in this one :-) I can't see too many problem areas. I'll paint out the stairs from the layer as see in the above clip and reproject them onto new geometry. The right side wall will probably need to be projected from another projection cam to the left maybe, though still not sure how to do this, anyone know? :) The arch passages to the left and right will conceal any need for painting inside them ... i think. Can't think of much else that will need painting in, maybe behind the pillars on the top level though that can be darkened down a little, shouldn't cause too much of a problem.

Does anything stand out as been a problematic area that maybe i'm missing?

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 01:47 PM
It obviously depends on how much of a move you want. Based on the current movie, the left side and the stairs along with the top level will need minimal painting, but the right side is going to be huge. Thats whats going to sell the move. Theres a huge parallax change as the right side of the first frame is pretty much just the pillar, but at the end you can see inside one of the arch sections. That arch section is probably going to need to have three planes with a brick texture for each of the three walls. Since we have no picture of that, it'll be guess work but I guess thats the fun part.:)

I've only done a camera projection once, on a simple photograph, so this should be a nice challenge.

EDIT: Before, by left side, I meant right side.:rolleyes:

04 April 2007, 01:55 PM
good camera move.
For the left part, I will suggest a camera proj. from the right part (of course :D) projected on two different layers (the front one, and the one in the back). Here it might be possible to have an front view of the arches to project it. Or u can resolve it with the same projection, but for the spaces from below a separate projection (for each room).
But I guess u'll have to reconstruct the left side too (or to mirror it :)) because from this move, the right side will be revealed.
Very nice projection. Good luck!

04 April 2007, 08:47 PM
Cheers guys, the cam move's not final, just a quick test, but it'll probably end up very similar. Regarding the right side, could i not stick a projecting camera to the left side of the room, mirror the image, tweak a little and just project this from the left side? I'm not too familiar with the process behind doing this but in theory it seems workable?

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 09:53 PM
Great start, David. The cleaning is flawless and you're doing a great job with the extension. I also like your camera projection. However (but probably you are just trying things out), I think it's a bit premature to decide on the camera move, if you haven't decided on the final plate yet. So, I think that perhaps you needn't worry about mirroring the other side just yet. But I think your theory is correct... I think you will do a wonderful job, and I am quite curious on the outcome.

Meanwhile, I have been testing some camera projection techniques over the last year...if you are curious here are some animations:

Spring Sunset Animation (
Airfield Animation (
Gateway to Hell Animation (

They are too two-dimensional and flat, but I hope to improve that with this great challenge you came up with.

04 April 2007, 10:46 PM
Thanks Andreas,

I'm approaching this feeling a little blind at the moment, though i think the general idea will get me there in the end, hopfully. For the moment i'm just setting up the basic layout and getting the camera matched up. I know that i'm going to be keeping most of the building itself. I'm confident that i'll be able to judge my way through it :) Though the more i think about it, it probably does make sense to take a step back and work up the final painting first ... oh i hate cam projecting :) that's why i HAVE to get this nailed.

Any ideas how you use two projecting cams in the same scene? this is the one thing that puzzles me. If using the example above i had two cameras, one project from right to the bottom left and the other from the left to the bottom right, their both projecting onto the same geometry, how can that work, you apply one material to the geometry so how do you project both ... i'm sure the penny will drop soon :)

Hey nice work btw, i remember your original posts. Nice clean fresh painting, though as you know a few elements seem a little flat and need beefing out a little :)

Cheers again - Dave.

04 April 2007, 10:52 PM
What 3D program you using Dave? Im assuming the methodology is similar in any prog but in Maya for example you would use a layered texture and use an alpha to determine which part of the model accepts its projection from which camera. If that makes any sense? Since in the end its just two file images on one piece of geometry right? So you just need to tell it which camera to use for certain parts of the mesh (or at least I think thats how it works :blush:.

04 April 2007, 10:41 AM
You're off to a very good start. :thumbsup:
And I'm now really curious to see what you come up with all the 3d and camera moves. I wish I could help but I don't know the first thing about that stuff.

04 April 2007, 07:54 PM
Thanks Sonia, check out the video tutorials in the challenge thread about camera mapping if you like.


I'm using Max. The thing that i don't quite get is that you can only assign one material/camera projection to the object. The process is like this:

You select a blank material and assign it to the object

click the diffuse slot and pick Camera per pixel map

that then allows you to select the camera and the image you wish to project.

The thing is if you assign a second material to the object it will just replace the first one.

I just know there's something so obvious that i'm missing :) the only trouble is that i only get a chance at night to work on this, when my brains well and truely crying out for sleep :)

Hey a little off topic, for the last few days i've not had any email notifications of responses to these thread, but clearly there very active? strange?

Cheers again - Dave.

04 April 2007, 08:15 PM
The detail that you want to be seen in other angles goes into the mask slot.

04 April 2007, 08:17 PM
Each material with its projection camera. U can use only a material for a selected object face. And u need another camera for the main view (to see the projected textures on objects.)

04 April 2007, 11:13 PM
Does Chris Stoski cover this in his DVDs Dave? I've not got them but I seem to remember that Max was mentioned in the blurb. Might be worth checking out anyway.

04 April 2007, 11:34 PM

In order to combine n camera projections into one material you have to use the camera map per pixel map (as you already did) for each camera and then combine them into a Composite map (not material) in the diffuse channel, taking care to apply a mask in the camera map per pixel map. The areas that are transparent (defined by the alpha in the mask slot) will show the map that is underneath (in the composite map) and combine into one final material.

What a poor explanation, but I think you will get there through some experimentation.

However, I think Chris Stoski only uses the camera map modifier with a lot of planes, without this composite technique or any camera map per pixel map.

Anyway, if you have any other question I will try to answer them...but I don't think 3dsmax is the best software for it (although it is also my software of choice). Maya seems to be pretty robust, from one of the Gnomon DVDs I saw.

04 April 2007, 02:42 AM
Well there is a lot of people here, that will be fun. I'll have 3 class on camera projection, maybe i'll be able to help u but i'm work on XSI, but the concept are suppose to be the same.

Didn't see the camera move cause of the bandwith limitation, i hope i'll be able to download it tommorow.

I think i'll learn a lot in this post, let see what u have to show :thumbsup:

04 April 2007, 12:42 PM
Oh crap my bandwidth's died again, really anoying when that happens.


Yeh i kinda understand what you mean, though i agree Max probably ain't the best program to learn Camera projection techniques with. So do you think it's much easier in Maya? I've got the 3 stoski DVD's, though i think there very good i don't think they go into the more advance techniques of Cam projection which is a shame.

I didn't see the Maya DVD, i might have to check it out.

I'll just play around and keep in my with what you said above and i'm sure it'll work out.

One other thing that's got me kinda puzzled. Continuing the above camera move (apologies, which has now died) when i go into the perspective view and look at the mapped geometry all the maps are really distorted and stretched, even though they render fine. Does this happen to you? Thing is as i'm looking through the projecting camera i want to correctly align the geometry to the stairs area, but in ordered to do this i need to be able to zoom in, which isn't really possible if you only has a viewport background image as reference.

Well, i'll keep trying :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 01:01 PM
Go to Customize-Preferences-Viewports-Configure Driver-Match Bitmap as close as possible and select the highest values there (1024 and 512). Also from time to time right click on the perspective on the top left and select texture correction.

04 April 2007, 01:22 PM
Cheers mate, though i already have it all set up this way. Please see attached screen grabs and you might be able to see what i mean...

The left pic is the perspective view while the right pic is the view through the projection cam (in wireframe). I want to be able to build up a little geometry around the stairs but as you can see it's all a little small, (note the image is the background image)

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 02:28 PM
meh double post, how do you delete em? :D

04 April 2007, 02:28 PM
Hi Dave,

Are there no overscan/offset controls for your camera so that you can temporarily jump in close and revert the values later once done?

04 April 2007, 02:41 PM
No don't think so, though i might be wrong. The thing is with the max background image it remains locked, so if you zoom in or out it's still the same.

Anyone know any different?

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 04:17 PM
Dave...the viewport zooming in was also on of the annoyances I faced along the process. In the Maya DVD there was an awesome script that really helped in that task and you could zoom in to model really tight over the image. However, there is a way in MAX, too, to zoom in although it is not perfect. I think the shortcut keys are through the NumPad and you can zoom and move around in the camera viewport. You are actually only zooming in the viewport. You activate this mode with the "/" key on the numpad and then you can zoom in (and pan, I think) with the other keys from the numpad. Then hit "/" again to exit that mode. However, if you zoom in too much, editing the vertices becomes all screwed up. I looked for a script that would do the same thing as the Maya script but I didn't find anything.

Regarding the order for you to see the mapping correctly in the viewport, you have to apply the camera map modifier (like in the Stotski DVDs) and then you can correctly see it, although there is no connection between the camera map modifier and the camera map per pixel map. So, you need to apply the modifier to see the maps in the viewport but you use the camera map per pixel map for the actual rendering, because it is more precise (no need to subdivide the geometry, unlike the camera map modifier) and you have the possibility to make composites.

I hope this was of help.

Although, I think that what Stotski does in the DVDs is fantastic, so I have my faith in Max, and will also do it in that software.

04 April 2007, 04:27 PM
Cheers, though the zoom thing doesn't work from what you suggested, i hit all the keys in the num pad and no change. That'd be great if it worked though :) any ideas?

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 04:30 PM
Correct that, i had it working for a few seconds by literally belting every key, i then went into another scene and i can't get it working again? Does it only work under certain conditions?

04 April 2007, 04:33 PM
No that just literally moves the camera, it doesn't allow you to zoom into the background too.

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 08:12 PM
Dave...if you look in the Customize Keys under "Virtual Viewport" you will see all the commands availible and the keys that activate it.

04 April 2007, 08:24 PM
Thanks Andreas, though as i mentioned in my previous reply i discovered the keys, however as you described all they do is move the camera itself. The background remains locked.

Did you mean something different?

Thanks again - Dave.

04 April 2007, 09:30 PM
I created a camera (in Max) changed the viewport to that cam, applied a viewport background and then I hit the "Virtual Viewport Toggle" shortcut key ("/" on the NumPad on my computer). Then I was able to pan with the cursor/numbers from the numpad and zoom in/out with "+" and "-" also from the numpad (Virtual Viewport Pan, Virtual Viewport Zoom) . I believe that is what you are aiming for, or is it something else?

04 April 2007, 09:48 PM
New concept ...

It's a little too dark, and too light in the center. I'm running through a few variants, i'm going to try a sandy one next i think :)

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 09:58 PM
Apologies Andreas i didn't see your post, yeh that's sounds right, and you can plan and zoom in on the background?

I have the same function however when i do it i can see the camera moving around in the other viewports clearly indicating that it's moving the cam, and the background remains fixed.

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 10:26 PM
wow great integration dave, especially at the stairs. Are you planning to integrate 3d-calculated reflections on the water surface ?

04 April 2007, 10:33 PM
Thanks, for the moment this is just a concept to get a feel and understanding, i'll probably do another 3-5 like this and maybe a few complete alternatives like desert, night, snow, lava etc .. A good tip, never do just one concept, do as many as possible and flip every other one, it really does work the more you do the more ideas evolve, then for the final version you have a playground of ideas :)

04 April 2007, 10:57 PM
Anreas, i think what your talking about is, or at least by what i can see is the 'Walk through' mode when you have a camera view. (the two feet in the bottom right) If you hold shift it goes up and down on the Z.

When you do it do you get the background image moving also?

- Dave.

04 April 2007, 11:07 PM
Great concept! I'm wait to see what will come out of ur mind... we can feel the dampness in the atmosphere. If i can give something like that at the end i'll be happy :)

04 April 2007, 11:11 PM
Trust me if it goes down this route, then it'll be VERY wet in the end ;)

Thanks - Dave.

04 April 2007, 11:14 PM
Great one, Dave...It really looks fantastic, especially for a concept. I'm looking forward to see where you take it.

About the "Virtual Viewport", it has nothing to do with the Walkthrough. My best advice is to go to Customize-Customize User Interface-Keyboard Tab and search for "Virtual Viewport" in the list. If no key is assigned to these commands, assign them yourself and then use these shortcuts in your viewport. If you do it correctly, your camera should stay in the same place, and you can zoom and move in the viewport, also zooming in the background image.

04 April 2007, 12:09 AM
Dave, rock on man it looks great... hmm and oddly enough your the only one who flipped the canvas.

04 April 2007, 12:11 AM
Cheers Andreas, you're one very patient person :)

I got it in the end, i needed to revert from Direct3d drivers to OpenGL, once i did that all became clear :)

Cheers again - Dave.

04 April 2007, 03:00 PM
nice concept , I like it a lot, but I think you will have to add a lot more elements to make it look complex ,everything at the end will have to interact with lights,shadows,reflections

nice work so far, good luck david

04 April 2007, 03:19 PM
I have been looking at the plate for a wee while now it is very boxy and i think it might be ideal to use blender on it. I have blender on my computer but never use it, too scared in all honesty. I had a look at a blender video tutorial with two lads describing how to do it. It was a snowscape they might as well been talking in swahili because I cannot under stand it. I have bryce (far to slow to render) carrara 2 (cannot find projection mapping) is there a way to help this shandy drinking southerner sus out projection mapping in blender.

On another note Photoshop CS3 extended has the answers, but im broke and cannot wait for it to come out any longer.



frustrated of London.

04 April 2007, 03:20 PM
Cheers Jaime, Yeh quite right, i'm going to work up a few concepts over the next two weeks, try different environments etc, see what works and what doesn't. Once i get one nailed down that i like i'll spend the remaining time working it up to a professional level. I'm really hoping to get these Cam projection techniques cracked during this challenge but i think i might have set myself a little too much of a challenge with this one, especially all the follage, grass and plants, not sure how you'd tackle that in a cam projection.

Hey Richard, i don't use blender that much myself but from seeing the video tutorials that i posted in the challenge thead it seems very similar to the general process used in Max and other programs. If you don't already have a 3d program then i'd really recommend learning blender, if only for this purpose. I don't believe the other programs you mentioned have camera mapping. All i can really recommend it that you persevere with the tutorials and investigate blender further, it is a very powerful program if you give it a chance :)

Thanks again - Dave.

04 April 2007, 03:24 PM
i'm loving the concept too.

p.s. Rich, what's wrong with London? :D

p.s. btw Dave I'll be fearly near you this w/e as I'm going to Alton Towers :blush:

04 April 2007, 05:07 PM
Londons fine, photographed it to death during the last year

Dave i will perservere mate blender looks good just alot of stuff to get my head round,

Cheers mucker cannot wait to see what you come up with,


04 April 2007, 06:14 PM
Hey Ismini, glad to have ya back :) I've never been to Alton Towers, though it's supposed to be the best we have when it comes to theme parks, i've been to Light water valley but that was a little laim, well i'm sure you'll have a good time :)

So any chance we'll be seeing an entry from you? :)

Richard, perserverence mate that's all it takes ;)

Regarding London, the day that i took the photography used in this contest i witnessed one guy getting serverely robbed on a tube and another guy literally free fall backwards from the top of the esculators down to the bottom, and he just got up and walked away! :) though i'm guessing London isn't always quite like that.

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 12:36 AM
love your concept , can't wait to see your take on the other concepts you mentioned :)

04 April 2007, 04:26 AM
Hi Everlite, nice concept. Very well integrated sketch with all your elements. Thumbs up! want to see more!

04 April 2007, 04:31 AM
Cheers mate, long time no see :) will we get an entry from you any time soon?

I'll be updating in the next day or so.

Cheers, Dave.

04 April 2007, 02:17 PM
Hey guys,

I'm still trying to crack the multi cam projection thing.

Here's the test files that i'm working with: (

I feel so close but i still can't seem to get it right.

Notice in frame 1 the odd grey shape in the shadows, and the last frame speaks for itself, i'm trying to mask this part out.

Hope someone can take a look and point me in the right direction :)

Cheers - Dave.

04 April 2007, 02:20 PM
can't help in max i'm afraid :( ...if i'm not working this w/e i might take a visit to the museum and possibly start the challenge....

04 April 2007, 12:40 PM
ooohhhh ur concept looks gooood...:buttrock: ..could u pls look at my concept if u have the time n give me some C&C ...thanks

04 April 2007, 06:40 AM
Originally Posted by everlite
Howdy :)

Yeh i agree, love the concept, looks really well, nice lighting, directs quite well. The main issue as mentioned above is the perspective of the two walls, the right side needs pulling back in, you could potentially break away the whole right side and just have that wall open. Really like the use of the lower levels, works well, though a little distorted.

On a final note, remember to try and be as photo-realistic as possible, also note the ratio/size needs to be more appropriate to matte painting :)

Good luck - Dave.

Hey Dave thanks for the feedback .....just want to clarify some of ur suggessions...what do u mean by 'just have an open wall' do u mean not have any architectre n just the caves rock face? Also what is the ratio/size of a matte :shrug: I not know wat it is.

04 April 2007, 05:24 PM
Oh! Love your "greenhouse"!
Sooo... When will we bw seeing the next concept? :)

04 April 2007, 06:04 PM
Hi thanks,

Greenhouse :) I'll be updating shortly. I've had two things i had to get sorted over the last week, one's well and truely sorted and the second, an issue with my website is in the process of getting resolved.

Once my websites back up and running in the next few days i'll be steaming my way back on track :)


By open wall i mean literally take it away, only the right side that is :) Only a suggestion though. The ratio/size of matte varies but something around the following widescreen formats is recommended:

2048 x 1107 (1.85:1 ratio)

2048 x 871 - (2.35:1 ratio)

Though sometimes i've heard people saying they prefer to see full-ap at 2048 x 1556 for portfolios and demo reels.

Cheers -Dave.

04 April 2007, 06:58 AM
oh :wise: is it k if i have it verticle? Im guessing not...but do let me know 'coz then my composition will have to change :eek:

04 April 2007, 07:57 AM
I think it is not a problem to let it vertical as long as in step 4 u'll do a vertical pan at 16:9 ratio- from top to bottom or reverse.

05 May 2007, 01:03 AM
awesome. I think that a water element and this architecture really work well together.

CGTalk Moderation
05 May 2007, 01:03 AM
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.