View Full Version : turborealism: revisiting an older piece

01 January 2002, 06:57 PM

Wanted to bring this one closer to what I originally had in mind over a year ago. Its still not perfect, but I like it better than the old version (which is still available on my site).

Rendering took 11 days at 4000x4000 pixels, followed by about four hours of touch-up and level monkeying. No photos or radiosity were used. Comments and questions welcomed.

01 January 2002, 07:29 PM
wow! Looks great. I love the sand and how it gets on everyhting in the render, and the feeling of dirt and grime....very sweet.


Luiz Felippe VZ
01 January 2002, 07:33 PM
I got really impressed with the amount of detail and the realism os this image... looks like a photograph... congratulations!

best regards..

01 January 2002, 07:53 PM
Amazing. The first version was very good but this one is near perfect. Did the render take 11 days because you didn't have enough ram or because of the complexity of the scene? And is that a something awful "Jeff K." reference I see?

Staffan Norling
01 January 2002, 08:11 PM
Ohhh...amazing realism indeed.

The only comment i can make (may seam like a pointless nitpick), is that the edge of the concrete wall against the sky looks a little bit smooth. You should be able to fix it in post-production by making the edge more jagged with a paintbrush or something. (i assume you multipassed the image?)

01 January 2002, 08:23 PM
Thanks guys.

Felytendect: 4000x4000 is a big image . . . I actually rendered it in 16 4000x300 slices and spliced them together. The scene also contains a couple displacement maps, and six area lights casting 12 rays each. Its a bit of a monster. There's no way A:M could've handled it if it hadn't been broken into managable chunks.

And yeah, I was into Jeff K back when I started this thing . . . Lowtax actually saw the original version . . . said I should make it a Quake level and send it to Cranky Steve :)

01 January 2002, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by balistic
There's no way A:M could've handled it if it hadn't been broken into managable chunks.

Being an A:M user myself, I'm wondering if that is a limitation of the A:M renderer or would other renderers also choke if they had to handle this whole image at once? Let's say if you rendered this image with Entropy, would you still have to split it into chunks to render? This question is not dealing with ram limitations, I'm just curious what the different capabilities are of render engines.

I hope that makes some sense.

01 January 2002, 09:20 PM
Old version, new version...I like them just as much. Each gives you different mood. BTW does AM have area lights?

01 January 2002, 09:24 PM
Most renderers are tile-based, meaning they already render in chunks, its just transparent to the user. A:M divides scenes instead by object, which isn't efficient if your objects have tens of thousands of patches each.

A:M doesn't have true area lights, but it has area shadows . . . your light still comes from a single point, but your shadows will diffuse as if a large light was casting them. I actually like A:M's lights better than true area lights. Easier to manage.

01 January 2002, 09:37 PM
It reminds me of Cal city, california. It's this really small town out in the desert that has mostly been abandoned. There's buildings like that where all is left are the concrete walls. It's very similar, reminded me of it right away.


01 January 2002, 10:12 PM
wow great work

looks cool

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 01:26 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.