Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Nice images, both of you.
thank you DB.
Same lighting rig; carrara is super fast with baked maps (10 min at 3000x)
Working on textures and light rigs. Figured I may as well try a different perspective, so I hid the water and added some dinosaurs.
No GI and no postwork except to convert to .jpg.
I've recently posted a bunch of Carrara images to my DAZ gallery (and to my website, of course). Rather than deluge you with them all, however, I thought I'd post just my favorite of the recent batch.
I like working in Carrara much more than the other tools I have. The renders I get aren't 'photo-realistic' (although I know that with more attention to lights and shaders I could probably get closer to photo-realism), but I rather like the 'painterly' look that Carrara gives.
That looks really nice. Love the relative simplicity of the background.
To you it's simple, to Carrara's anti-aliasing algorithms it's an absolute nightmare. Took forever to render. ;-)
A night version of my scene. No postwork. The stars won't be included as I don't have the rights.
Carrara's surface replicators are great for spreading grass around.
Loving those renders, angusm! Most heroic!
ep, that night time scene looks great!
angusm,
I also like the painterly output of Carrara - especially for my animations. You're right, there's so much that we can do to get closer and closer to photo-real, if that's a goal. I think that magmareto does a really decent job to that end, as with others. I also find the opposite to be true - we can use lights and settings, effects, etc., to get a bit further from real, too :) - which I find to be really fun!
Final render for my latest article on CAFE...
I say "final" but I've actually "finished" this pic about 20 experimental renders ago.... Nothing is ever final, not when you can just keep tweaking shaders and lights. Ugh!
“Art is never finished, only abandoned.”
― Leonardo da Vinci
I never finish anything either ...... ;-)
Has that got a bit of Anything Goos on it Holly?
:cheese: Yes... not very well thought out I guess. Some brownish A-Goos in all crevices, but I didn't bother to put dirt or damage anywhere else... I guess there is a cleaning lady, but she is not very thorough... Hard to get good help in your top secret bio-fluids lab. LOL
:cheese: Yes... not very well thought out I guess. Some brownish A-Goos in all crevices, but I didn't bother to put dirt or damage anywhere else... I guess there is a cleaning lady, but she is not very thorough... Hard to get good help in your top secret bio-fluids lab. LOL
I know I hate brownish A-Goos in MY crevices! :ahhh:
I know I hate brownish A-Goos in MY crevices! :ahhh:
:-S <-- never had the opportunity to use this smiley before... LOL</p>
A different angle of my night scene. The final version won't have the craptacular stars. The user can add their own craptacular stars! ;-)
Do you all think it is too bright? The moon is a full moon and is the exact same everything as my last post. If I dim the moon's brightness, it muddies the other angles where you are in shadows or the moon backlights objects.
I think it is too dark. Realism be darned, I hate squinting at the screen thinking I am going blind...
**edit, although it does look very good in the large version... I am pro-Hollywood. Fake lighting is awesome!
I think it is too dark. Realism be darned, I hate squinting at the screen thinking I am going blind...
**edit, although it does look very good in the large version... I am pro-Hollywood. Fake lighting is awesome!
So not too dark then when looking at the large image? I uploaded the .png straight from Carrara.
I do think the thumbnail image does look dark. I was hoping if I uploaded the .png the compressor algorithm might have more data to work with and the effects of the lost color information wouldn't be so bad. Oh well.
way to dark - go outside when there is a full moon
all most looks like snow so bright .
Did you just look at the forum thumbnail or the full sized image?
Did you just look at the forum thumbnail or the full sized image?
both .
both .
So is it the blacks are to deep or the bright areas not bright enough? I'm wondering if it is a difference in gamma. I live out in the country in an area with pretty low light pollution and see the light of the full moon on a regular basis- usually once a month. ;-) On my monitor it looks pretty close, if not a bit bright. I want it to look good on all monitors though, so your feedback is important.
both .
So is it the blacks are to deep or the bright areas not bright enough? I'm wondering if it is a difference in gamma. I live out in the country in an area with pretty low light pollution and see the light of the full moon on a regular basis- usually once a month. ;-) On my monitor it looks pretty close, if not a bit bright. I want it to look good on all monitors though, so your feedback is important.
I live in the country too - light is not bright enough for me .
Like I said when I go out its like walking in say 1/2 inch of snow -
you can see most every thing here .
Well not as much in woods but it still bright .
Maybe you don't let your eyes get adjusted enough .
I wasn't going to mention it, but since you are asking, most of the images that you post here are too dark on my screens. I'm using a Mac Pro with an NEC monitor, and an iPad. Both screens display your images as way too dark (both thumbnail and full size). Most of the images posted by others appear much brighter.
In your daylight images, the shadows are too deep and appear black. The nighttime images are, of course, even more so.
Windows PCs and Macs have always used a different gamma setting. But this seems to be more than just that.
I took the liberty of adjusting your night image in Photoshop until it looked better on my display (hope you don't mind). I adjusted both the color saturation and individual RGB levels. At low light levels the human eye loses sensitivity to color, until, at very low levels, we see in black and white. I tried to reproduce that effect as best I could.
This looks like a brightly moonlit scene to me. Does it look too bright to you?
I wasn't going to mention it, but since you are asking, most of the images that you post here are too dark on my screens. I'm using a Mac Pro with an NEC monitor, and an iPad. Both screens display your images as way too dark (both thumbnail and full size). Most of the images posted by others appear much brighter.
In your daylight images, the shadows are too deep and appear black. The nighttime images are, of course, even more so.
Windows PCs and Macs have always used a different gamma setting. But this seems to be more than just that.
I took the liberty of adjusting your night image in Photoshop until it looked better on my display (hope you don't mind). I adjusted both the color saturation and individual RGB levels. At low light levels the human eye loses sensitivity to color, until, at very low levels, we see in black and white. I tried to reproduce that effect as best I could.
This looks like a brightly moonlit scene to me. Does it look too bright to you?
Thanks for the feedback. Comments are always welcome! Whether I actually follow through is sometimes another matter. ;-)
I do think it is a gamma issue. It would be so much easier if there was a way to share screen shots of what others see and what I see without our monitors getting in the way!
For what it's worth, I'm using a PPC Power Mac with an Apple Studio display (LCD). I just went through the calibration process to check, and it seems to be nearly the same luminosity as the original profile. It suggested a gamma of 1.9 vs. 1.8 after I went through the calibration process. You're using an NEC monitor. Is your gamma set to 1.8 or 2.2? Your image appears to have the same luminosity on my monitor, just the colors are less saturated. To correct for the scene, I will possibly have to desaturate the colors in the shaders, which is something I was considering (although not looking forward to) for the night scene. This is why I wanted to find out if it was too bright or too murky. I have some beta testers trying it out, so hopefully they'll share some results.
From your response and from bigh's, it sounds as if I will need to probably increase the atmospheric light. I'm already at 60% intensity for the moonlight. I don't really want to go much brighter than that if I can avoid it. I would like to keep the moonlight as it is, tied to the RSE, but that precludes any color adjustments, unless I can set the motion method to Moonlight for a standard distant light...... Hmmm. I will have to try that. Or perhaps parent a distant light to the moonlight and turn the moonlight brightness down... Anyway, thankyou again for the comments. I will work more on the lighting.
JUST FOR FUN I did a scene using Dartanbeck's Underwater Realms - They are fantastic! The figures are all standard DAZ.
Nice job! He'll be glad you like the scene!
My latest labors to achieve a decent lighting rig, this time with two benchmark scenes
This one was a bit tougher - which is why I've gone through great lengths to make it easy to just import and render. It takes a bit of strategy to get the character where she is in this shot. I've really grown to love this product. This particular version was tweak out by me a bit...
I have a very short article here, in my Project Dogwaffle Howler thread, regarding the post work and how I did it.