Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
hi.
i'm mostly in the members only forum.
Oh... and shlomi,
I really like the image a lot! I will have to try that effect of focal blur more often - you really have a nice shot there! Love it! The sunlight on those autumn leaves... looks just like it does here when the colors are doing their thing.
Just a render I did for my nephews. They've been visiting from out of state, and tomorrow they head home. Basically billboards of them in Star Wars ships.
Yeah! Like Head Wax, I love the glow! Very cool image... colors rock!
Varsel, oh....
That is gorgeous! What a fine piece of mesh! Very well done, my friend!
That's awesome! Hey, I'm a Star Wars fan, too... Can I have one? Please Uncle Evil? :-P
Along the lines of Sci Fi in Space:
your renders all ways look dark to me .
well 9 times trying to post comment :roll:
your renders all ways look dark to me .
well 9 times trying to post comment :roll:I'm feeling that this one's too dark, too, now that you mention it. Especially the engine flames. I was actually trying for a dark scene with mostly backlight for this one - but, I agree... I think I've overdone the darkness.
Also, I really dislike it when I'm trying to post and I have to play the Log out and back in game.
it might be your monitor too.
my Carrara renders were always too dark for others on my laptop as it was so bright
everything is too dark on my android
I myself go for dark renders for space scenes, it is dark out there with bits of blinding light from sun etc, see NASA pics!
Maybe my monitor gamma is different or something. I see deep shadows, but the lit parts appear crisp (except where they're supposed to be blurred). The main light could be a bit brighter perhaps.
Here's a quick try in PaintShopPro. Just got this, and still trying to figure out where everything is. I like it.
It will be a great compliment to Dogwaffle for the more photo style adjustments and tweaks. I love the versatility of Howler, however. Nothing beats being able to go in a hand tweak things with a pigment-free brush!
I usually leave the background layer in PS alone and duplicate that and adjust.
For what it's worth, often (very often) I see images posted here that clearly are very dark or overblown bright. And I'm guessing that part of the reason is that most people don't perform the basic monitor calibration and other steps before doing graphics work. It really is important that you do the basics if you want others to see your work.
There's another thread about the "magic" gamma setting for realistic renders, but if all the other stuff hasn't been calibrated it's pretty silly to think that there's a silver bullet to make all your renders look realistic.
Again, I would suggest that folks do a little investigation on the proper procedures for setting up their systems, as well as really understanding what all this gamma stuff IS and what it really MEANS, rather than looking for silver bullets.
they must be stoked :)
looking Fast and Furious ;)
looking Fast and Furious ;)I'm truly sorry, HW. I totally missed out this month. At least I got that one done. This other stuff was easy, toss together stuff. This last one I was all excited doing. I bought Inagoni's Advance Pack and found "Replica" to be absolutely outstanding! Just group together as many figures or props or whatever you want a lot of, and Edit > Replica and set up an array or cast them along a surface. But those petipet starships I just replicated a simple array and then moved the instances around where I wanted them - really fast. Funny - because Replica was one from that bundle that was not on my want list - but was the first thing I tried - and love it!
joe - whatever you say all knowing pro. Who said any one of us plans on using this Gamma thing as a be-all end all? Seems to me that most people posting in that thread are seeing that they still have plenty to consider when using such a method - and the author was attempting to get a similar result of one method by using another, that takes less time, but with trade-offs. Why do you feel so responsible to belittle the rest of us? This is a community forum, not an exam. Perhaps I'm alone in this thought... but I truly enjoy to see a new member's first attempts. If someone spends years trying and never creates anything that fits my tastes doesn't compel me to tell the other person that they really should spend a few years in college on the subject before posting thoughts or images. I'm simply responding to the accusatory statement made above, not attacking in any way. But whether you agree or no, PhilW is a professional. I've seen several of his credentials. And many Carrara users, including myself, truly appreciate his urging us to experiment his method. He doesn't actually state that it is the final solution. He asks us to experiment and try different things. This is ingeniously similar to words expressed often by an incredibly professional physicist friend whom I know and work with in our astronomical society. As a matter of fact, not one of the genius persons I know or have been acquainted with behave 'high and mighty', better than all. For such behavior would be foolish - which is not becoming of a genius.
Just sayin'
hey, no worries ;) Inagoni’s Advance Pack is wonderful !
in regards to the other stuff, best not to bite!
That's what I thought too... but there's no way I could sleep without saying something. Maybe it will go unnoticed and I'll get away with it? We'll see.
Wow, I'm not sure where that all came from... In spite of your interpretation of what I said, the fact is I am trying to help. If you want to take it as something else, I suppose that's up to you.
As I said, some people here (notably, you and Evil) tend to post images that are fairly consistently dark, with a relatively low dynamic range. I am trying to point out that there might be a simple reason for that, and you might want to consider looking into some basic monitor calibration steps or other possible causes. I'm not suggesting you go to college, merely that you consider some of the basics. If you haven't calibrated your monitor, you might want to consider it. It only takes a few minutes.
And I'm also suggesting that if people do some basic learning (ie, read a book or two on the basics, nothing more) you might uncover some fairly wonderful bits of knowledge that will help you to understand and enjoy this hobby even more.
The fact is that gamma considerations in computer graphics are nothing new, and are fairly basic. They've been around as long as there have been computer graphics. And mis-application of the concept can make things worse. I'm merely suggesting that people, once again, do a little learning so they know exactly what is going on so that they can take full advantage of the concept. And that involves nothing more than taking a few hours of reading some excellent resources on the subject.
Wow, I'm not sure where that all came from... In spite of your interpretation of what I said, the fact is I am trying to help. If you want to take it as something else, I suppose that's up to you.
As I said, some people here (notably, you and Evil) tend to post images that are fairly consistently dark, with a relatively low dynamic range. I am trying to point out that there might be a simple reason for that, and you might want to consider looking into some basic monitor calibration steps or other possible causes. I'm not suggesting you go to college, merely that you consider some of the basics. If you haven't calibrated your monitor, you might want to consider it. It only takes a few minutes.
And I'm also suggesting that if people do some basic learning (ie, read a book or two on the basics, nothing more) you might uncover some fairly wonderful bits of knowledge that will help you to understand and enjoy this hobby even more.
The fact is that gamma considerations in computer graphics are nothing new, and are fairly basic. They've been around as long as there have been computer graphics. And mis-application of the concept can make things worse. I'm merely suggesting that people, once again, do a little learning so they know exactly what is going on so that they can take full advantage of the concept. And that involves nothing more than taking a few hours of reading some excellent resources on the subject.
Not sure how I entered into this, but I'll bite. I do understand how to calibrate my monitor. I actually have a couple custom profiles I can switch to. One for my native monitor and OS and one for TV/PC output. I only switch to the TV/PC profile when editing video. I used to update the one for my native monitor and OS about once a year when I was using a CRT, however, since I've been using an LCD I haven't checked as often. I just checked and it seems okay. I don't have the fancy pants hooded monitors and the little hand held calibrators they used to use (and maybe still do), but to my eyes it looks as it's supposed to when running the built in tests.
Yup, I've run into that problem when i was looking for a new monitor. I was trying to figure out what i needed to look for when i came across calibration websites. So i thought, might as well try this on my current monitor... and it was completely off. Some things were due to the crappyness of the monitor itself, but others were easy to fix. My new monitors came with calibration certificates, but i still checked out the tests (and they were indeed calibrated :) ).
Here's a site i used, for lcd monitors:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
In fairness, the other thread wasn't about the merits of gamma correcting images, it was more specifically about what *else* happens *besides* gamma correction when the box is checked for gamma correction in the Carrara render room.
The point in that thread was that when the gamma correction box is checked Carrara's render engine does much more than simply gamma correct - it actually reads the textures differently and renders in a different and much more detailed and realistic process (the speculation is that this may be due to linear workflow, but this is simply a guess). Doing a render in Carrara with the gamma correction box unchecked and then using a photo editor to gamma correct afterwards will not yield the same results/details as when the gamma correction box is checked during the render, and the render engine works in a completely different way.
I'm seeing my render quality nearly double, with excellent details and much more realistic lighting falloff. So while no-one is saying this is a magic silver bullet, I do think the technique should be shouted from the rooftops so that the Carrara community at large can make use of it.
This in no way diminishes Joe's point about calibrating monitors however; that is an excellent tip and the first thing I did after reading it was calibrate my monitor (it actually was calibrated to display correctly already, but the point is still valid and I'm glad I checked).
one more.
Excellent Image, shlomi!
And my point was NOT about calibrating monitors. That was merely an EXAMPLE of one of the very simple and very basic steps that everyone should take.
My main point, and the point I make over and over and over and over here, and is generally met with absolute silence and disinterest, is that what should be shouted from the rooftops is NOT that you should set your gamma to 2.2, but that you should read some books about the basics of 3D before you start playing with software. That way the very basic stuff like gamma will not be an amazing revelation, it will be one of those very basic concepts that you know and understand from the very beginning.
But when people don't understand the basics, and that EVERYTHING in your "workflow" should be calibrated for the proper gamma, including shader textures, monitors, renderers, etc., they might tend to make one easy setting and get disappointed when their results don't look good. Or they might convince themselves that the results are super awesome when in fact they have no idea how to determine what "good" is.
As an example, an image was posted in the gamma thread I believe, as an example of the wonders of a 2.2 gamma setting. And that image has the attached histogram. Now, most photographers and graphics persons would see an image like that and discard it, because it has no midrange or high level tones whatsoever, which generally means it holds little interest to the viewer. Now that is a very basic consideration that is being ignored, and instead people are believing that the image is an example of the wonders of excellent gamma.
I am not trying to attack or belittle anyone, just trying (apparently in vain) to get people to at least consider studying the basics IF they want to produce great images. That's all.
Don't get me wrong, joe... I do appreciate and enjoy the information you put forth. I wasn't referring to the monitor calibration/adjustments, either. That was an excellent point as is the point you make directly above. It just throws me, once in a while, when you come in condescending sometimes. Like jonstark says in his post, in all fairness the other thread is about something special that happens inside of Carrara when assigning 2.2 as the Gamma correction - it launches a linear render mode within Carrara's Render engine - or something like that. I really like dark. I have since I've downloaded indigone's awesome shader/lights kit with her dark shadows lighting rig. Big fan.
Other times - they just turn out that way because I messed something up along the way. If I post it here, I either like it or I'm showing off what I don't like about it. Sorry I get so dog gone sensitive towards how one person talks to others. I don't really care how people talk to me most of the time. Perhaps that's because most people are generally nice to me.
No, the part I was referring to was when you said something about everyone flocking to Phil's "discovery". Why should we? He asked us, very nicely, to try something quite specific and to post our results. After some questions came up, the specifics got stretched into - "well, just try that, too!", which was also fun. I don't have a huge HDRI collection - but I'm having fun with what I have. I haven't had a lot of time to mess with it - busy with my own work. But I thought you made a rather rude comment in there before the one in here - which sparked off my crazy comment.
No, joe... I do value what you say, sometimes. When it comes off like the bully big brother... I tend to try and ignore the whole thing. Sometimes it just doesn't work - and only the negative comes through. Perhaps, one day, I'll see a doctor about that.
Honestly, Mr. Beck, I really don't care... :)
If you don't like how I say stuff, and choose to ignore my input like everyone else here, that's up to you. Whether you value my input or not doesn't matter to me whatsoever. What I post is based on a whole lot of experience, and is, at the very least, valid. If you know better, then have fun... :)
Honestly, Mr. Beck, I really don't care... :)
If you don't like how I say stuff, and choose to ignore my input like everyone else here, that's up to you. Whether you value my input or not doesn't matter to me whatsoever. What I post is based on a whole lot of experience, and is, at the very least, valid. If you know better, then have fun... :)Exactly what I was trying to say. joe... you are who you are - who cares what I say? LOL
Thanks for your insight, man! It is "I" whom "You" should ignore! ;)
Take care, man.
Why not post a render now and again... just for fun?
Seriously. I bet you've got some amazing stuff on that drive. This is, after all, the "Post Your Renders" thread.
Cheers.