WIP: KREOLA - Eddie Smith

#46

looks good to me :slight_smile:

 *you need more colors and values grading for the 3d elements to match the plate more and of course some more textures (I assume some 3d elements aren't textured yet). btw you're losing the bounced light effect on the 3d elements ;)
 
 *Be careful not to make things look too perfect because in real world, everything's not perfectly placed according to perspective, so i guess it's okay if some elements don't perfectly go along with other elements. right now they looked perfectly straightened and elements are too visually organized, or what the industry called as "too clean" (not literally clean). sometimes, just a hint of an element is "more" than completely showing the whole element :)
         Tip: To be able to (however) accurately tell the imperfections, imagine how the people 
                 will live in this environment. Their flaws will determine the flaws of the world they 
                 live in. :)

*and one last thing, i noticed that your 3d elements have lots of greens on them, might as well have some of that greens on the plate too, for a more consistent looking scene. or you can do the other way around, whatever makes you happy. (on the house itself, not just on the roofs)

 Hope that helps :)
#47

That definitely helps. Thanks. :bowdown: The 3D elements are bare to save time. I figured it would be quicker for me to just paint over them to fully integrate them into the scene rather than really try to fully texture-match everything from Maya.

I planned to do the steps you mentioned I just wanted to post something since I hadn’t posted in a while. I plan to “dirty” it up and add atmosphere/“daily grind” to it which will definitely show once it’s done. I totally agree with you regarding a lot of mattes looking “too perfect.” I’m a big fan of your piece by the way. :applause:

#48

Brilliant 3D elements :slight_smile:
Watch out for value/hue/saturation integration when you balance everything in Photoshop :wink:
Are you going to paint over your renders to add more detail for realism?

#49

Thanks Seema,

I sure will watch out for value/hue/saturation integration as well as paint over the renders. I’ll post another WIP at the end of this week. :slight_smile:

:buttrock:

#50

Great progress. Wonderful image. Simply love it.

Even if you are not into it, i would recommend to do values and colors right now since they both will have a considerably effect on your composition.
Way more important than any detail you might add.

#51

Hello folks,

Here’s the latest WIP.

I will add the railings and whatever else I may need to add once I get feedback. :beer:

#52

Hello folks,

Here’s my final with railings and all.

:slight_smile:

#53

Hi Eddie,

Is the BG bridge finished? The overall image still looks like a drawing rather than photo real, but that’s just my opinion.

Could you help me out with the perspective…I can’t locate your vanishing point, it seems like you have several.

I’ve been trying to work it out, with no success.

http://i1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb343/ATC125/perspectivepoints.jpg

#54

Hi Eddie. Sorry for late feedback (you mentioned that this is final) but if you still want it…
This is still great, but I liked more some aspects in your previous version. For example it was more bright, more sunny. Now it looks a bit like the sun was eclipsed for a moment by a little half-transparent cloud.

About the perspective - maybe it could be a little bit adjusted here and there… But multiple vanishing points don’t bother me - there’s not such thing like “one general” vanishing point in real world. In fact I think it looks much more interesting when there’s more angles than 0 and 90 degrees in the scene.

About details - I would prefer something between current sharp and dirty look and previous - more smooth. What I mean is visible for example on green metal in upper left corner.

But at the end - almost everything I wrote here is expression of my own preferences. If you see it different - simply ignore it :). In general - this is still one of my favorite visions of Flussdorf in this contest.

Regards
Jonatan

#55

We’ve had this conversation before Jonatan, so I’ll try and clarify what I mean.

Firstly, yes in the real world, especially in places where buildings are built on uneven ground or not in rows, each building’s FACE has it’s own vanishing point depending upon the orientation. And yes, that’s perfectly fine and natural, but is not what I am talking about.

Regular (i.e not designed by Gaudi) buildings cannot have two or more different vanishing points on the same face or side…and the same goes for two or more buildings that are on exactly the same angle/position.

Take for example the second building on the left…the two storey one. Judging by the walkway/ground in front of that building which is perfectly flat, it should be on the same perspective plane as the building in front of it.

However, not only does it have distorted perspective which is different to the railings and building in front, it also has different perspective from the bottom of the building to the top, which is impossible. The Kreola plate building is distorted.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, when I also posted a reference image of how perspective works, you can rotate a building on it’s axis, and the faces will change their VP’s,

HOWEVER if you connect the 4 corners of the top of the building making a cross, and do the same on the bottom, and then remove the building, you will have two points in space, which when connected create a vertical centreline with an absolute top and bottom point.

These lines will remain the same for every other building on the same side of the street that is the same size, regardless of which way you rotate the the house on that centreline.

All those centrelines (with the houses removed) will look like a row of matchsticks that will conform to one perspective point.

My point here is Jonatan, is that you cannot have 4 different vanishing points on the same side of a building.

#56

Hey Jonatan,

I’d be a fool to ignore your critique. It helps. I’ll be sure and take a look at any details that could use some adjustment. You’re right about the brighter version. I’m leaning toward the that version myself and will bump up the sunshine a bit. And I will be sure and add a bit more detail (like the upper left corner you talked about). I really appreciate the tips. They really help when you’re the only one staring at this thing constantly - another pair of helpful eyes is always good. :thumbsup:

As far as the perspective, it doesn’t bother me either. My philosophy is “as long as it looks cool, I’m happy.” Besides, when a matte painting is in a shot, audiences are not going to be in the theater or in front of their screen holding a perspective grid/diagram up to the film.

As long as it passes the eye test, I’m satisfied with it. I’d assume the judges of this contest feel the same way you and I do - since they haven’t really gone into it much if at all in their feedback.

Anyhow thanks Jonatan. :beer:

#57

I agree with you somewhat, that if it doesn’t notice it’s fine…but when perspective is so obviously out, I notice it straight away…but that’s just me.

Maybe because I’ve been a photographer for over 30 years and also studied perspective as a subject at Uni…I just see it straight away.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion as to what is right, but there are certain basic laws of reality that apply, especially when this is supposed to be a photo-real matte painting.

That’s my thought anyway. If Eddie is happy, then that’s the most important thing.

I was just pointing out to Jonatan some technical info regarding vanishing points.

#58

Hi Eddie. I’m glad that you found something useful in my happy writing. Keep working and never give up! The deadline stands above us with his scary giant ax. Let’s fight him! :slight_smile:

James, I hope you didn’t take my post here as a personal attack on you. Eddie asked for feedback and we gave it to him (everyone with his own (vanishing :wink: ) point of view). That’s what this threads are for.

About “pointing out to Jonatan some technical info regarding vanishing points”… Sorry but you didn’t point me anything new.
By the way No. 1 - If we talk about technical info, you present only so-called one point perspective. It is simplified perspective and “basic laws of reality” are not based on that, if we would like to be precise.
By the way No. 2 - “you cannot have 4 different vanishing points on the same side of a building”? If you take a look closer, you will see that even in provided for this contest plate not everything leads to one vanishing point. Not even on the same side of the building.
By the way No. 3 - I see no point in writing who studied what. I studied Building Industry for example, and - also for example - I had a diagrammatic geometry… so what? Let’s use reason, not papers.

About the perspective - I’m not trying to prove that parallel lines are not parallel. I’m trying to prove that not all lines should be parallel. Why Gaudi shouldn’t create his buildings? Why Tim Burton shouldn’t create his vision of “Alice in wonderland”? And finally (maybe in a bit smaller scale :wink: ) why we should build “Regular (…) buildings” in this contest? This is Flussdorf - a city “seamlessly carved into the rock”. Lying along the river and it has something from “old Tunisian Suk”. Not everything here must look like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:One_point_perspective.jpg
I wrote to Eddie that there could be some adjustments here and there, but on the other hand… is it really obligatory to be absolute precise? Most people go to the cinema for great visions, ideas, fun etc. Not to track vanishing points. If they feel it’s real (on the cinema way of course) then why all edges should be exactly parallel? I think the best way is to focus on feeling the image, with rules somewhere in back of the head. Rules are very important of course, but they should help not hamper, restrain us. Especially simplified rules (if you would like to use only Newtonian mechanics, many inventions would not exist).

If you still want to discuss about perspective, why not to create new thread for this? It could be quite interesting - I imagine some pub for artists on Kreola. We sitting there, tasting good beer, gossiping about Flussdorf… Suddenly, when bartender in some steampunk hat on his head brought us another pitcher, you say: “OK Jonatan let’s talk about perspective”. I’m curious… where that kind of discussion could lead after, let’s say… fifth beer. Well… Gaudi could be proud :). I would come to this pub from time to time ;).

Regards
Jonatan

P.S. Please forgive us Eddie for this little off-topic in your thread, I hope you don’t mind… If you don’t want it here, let me know and I will delete this post.

#59

Okay, let’s leave Eddies thread alone (sorry Eddie) and agree to disagree about perspective, as we obviously have different opinions about how it works.

#60

Nice work on the finish Eddie, congrats!!

#61

nice work!

adding something to discussion about perspective, one-point perspective is simple way. sometimes its ok, but sometimes you can do more when you playing with it. For example, Pieter Bruegel in his “way to calvary” used 7 perspectives mixed up. But u can see that, only if u will study this artwork very intensiv. It isn’t obvious in first look, and it dosen’t look like mistake.

According to your work, it looks more natural if u are not clean in that thing. Reality isn’t clean :slight_smile:

#62

Fantastic work Eddie! That Jade green works perfectly for steam punk doesn’t it? I’m pretty sure you’ll make the podium. Great effort

#63

Fantastic work! It was one of my favorites from the beginning. And still is! Good luck!

Regards
Jonatan

#64

I haven’t been involved in this challenge or thread as much as I’d have liked to be, but this issue of perspective is interesting. While I’m on the side of “correct perspective is better” than multiple VPs, I thought I’d relate something I heard from Syd Mead many years ago.

I think we can all agree the man knows something about laying out city-scapes and expansive vistas, even if they don’t fall into the photo-real rendering category of DMPs. After a talk he gave, I asked him if he ever thought of using computers to do basic perspective layouts (this was when personal computers were fairly new). His answer was “Oh, heavens no! None of my perspectives are technically correct and my images would look entirely different if I tried to make them accurate.” I thought that was an interesting example of not using technically accurate perspective, but obviously working within a realm that’s still believable to the eye, at least upon first look.

As with so many things (music, art, design, etc.) it’s generally better to learn the basics in order to be able to effectively deviate from them.

#65

still my bet. this is the steamiest entry good job mr. smith! :slight_smile: