Photo real sci fi interiors
laynemoore
Posts: 0
Can I get some recommendations on where to purchase the most photo realistic interior settings for sci fi? I understand realistic and sci fi have to be taken with a grain of salt. This would be for putting live actors into the scene through green screens and camera tracking. Since I'm focused on learning Carrara 8.5 pro, I'd be using it in the workflow.
Also, can I get your thoughts on using After Effects with Carrara, such as what issues you've had, what types of shots have you made with the two. I love what they did in the Modern Times video and am shooting for that kind of quality.
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
There are several attractive "Star Trek: NG" type sets here at DAZ, look under the vender Stonemason for starters. He also has some grittier" interiors that are "metal junky". If you can be more specific about your genre, people can point you to specific products.
Also look at the P.I.C.K. series at RuntimeDNA which is a kit to build your own rooms, and do a search for architecture kit at Renderosity, there are several there too. Carrara can import any OBJ or FBX model so if you want to spend money also look at Turbosquid, the models there are often a step above the Poser universe....
"Photorealism" probably has more to do with shaders and lighting. For a lot of sci-fi interiors the architectural details may become less important depending on the aesthetic - I am thinking the interiors of the Cylon motherships in the reboot of Battlestar Gallactica where the sets were very simple screens and lights. Presumably within the next decade we will see buildings that are 3D printed so expect buildings to take on all manners of organic undulating shapes and less and less flat walls or utilitarian function (wall jacks, square windows, panel seams, or joints of any kind).... Walls might be waffle-textured and threaded with ridges or ribs to make them stronger. Entire ceilings might be a layer of luminescent film, rather than light fixtures... The trend is away from "junky" interiors of Star Wars and Aliens. Buildings of the future might be 3D printed with impermanent materials that are intended to be recycled or eco-dissolve overtime.... I'm just saying, depending on your vision you may be able to do a LOT with abstraction or by using very simple models with some advanced textures and lighting... You'll notice the models in Modern Times are pretty simple, and the sets in the recent Star Trek movies barely exist (they are also mostly light effects)...
Lot's more to discuss on this topic, but my 2¢
I was going to say realism is more to do with light and surfaces, you can have the best model in the world but it won't look realistic with those two things. Stonemason's products are probably the best models I have seen rendered in Octane that look realistic from the get go.
That's helpful. Looking at the screen shots may not be the best judge of how it would look in the film because, as you've pointed out, it depends on the lighting and the textures. I'll be amping up my tutorial learning on these areas but, I know I'll have questions. Thanks for being such a helpful group. I may need some help on shading for realism since I'm not using Genesis characters.
This is a full length feature. There's a heavy Star Wars influence with the smaller ship interiors. The larger battle station ships have a shinier feel to them. It would be less Enterprise and more Death Star. The good guys have brighter settings, the bad guys have a dark but sleek ship.
There's a main cockpit about the size of the Millennium Falcon used in a lot of shots, so we're building a real set for it. Other than that I hope to CG the corridors, larger rooms, main bridges, etc.
The CG requirements may sound simple to most but, for me, since I don't know how to do it, I'm going to have to learn by doing. Things like sliding doors, blinking lights, control panels. I'm trying to get a really sweet production value on this project. I'm going to generate the snow scenes and forest scenes with Carrara's environments.
There are two characters who are all CG - a hovering robot and a reptilian-type monster.Other than that the others are actors. I have a good start on using After Effects to rotoscope them into a scene with live actors (and hopefully some great CG sets). It's just not going to be real to me until I can get some footage and start compositing everything together. It's the shadows and lighting that will sell the shot and make it look right.
This is in script stage right now. I'm still working on the casting. It's a dream I've had since I was 12. I hope we can get some webisodes going when production actually starts. I'm happy to offer a movie credit to anyone who feels like helping.
Something that could really help is rendering in layers. What I mean is, decide what is a CG background element, where you want your actors, for instance, will they be in the middle ground? If so, then consider rendering some foreground elements. This can help by creating the illusion that the actors are integrated into the environment rather than projected in front of it.
EP - If using a CG set, is it easy to render layers? Aren't they just put together the way they're designed? Should I look for something special if I want to render layers? I've never done it - maybe I need to get one and start experimenting with the "hows." I'm one of those people who needs to try it before I can take that concept and apply it to something else.
There are probably better ways to do layers, but here is something I used for a recent render.
I created a scene with all elements I wanted to use. Then everything was animated (objects, camera, etc.) how I wanted.
In the scene, there were some elements in the foreground and some in the background. I had some other elements not created in Carrara that were going to be in the "middle ground" between these two (similar to your actors).
Prior to rendering, I turned off the foreground elements (made them not visible). Then I rendered the scene. Next I turned on the foreground elements and turned off the background elements and did a second render.
This left me with one "movie" for the foreground and a separate one for the background.
In my video editor, I put both both these movies on my timeline, one on "top" of the other. I then put my non-Carrara element in between the two.
Depending on how your scene is set up, you may have to use alpha channels or shadow catchers to account for the hidden objects in each render. The above, however, should give you the basic concept.
Carrara can also render other layers such as depth of field. These can also be helpful when compositing in your video editor, depending on the effects and look you want to achieve.
I also really like Predatron's 14 MU Link Chamber and many offerings from The Ant Farm, whose store pages you'll need to cruise through a bit, because he has a lot of stuff in the store. Moebius87 and Nightshift3D have some really cool interiors too.
I really like this new Sci Fi Passage by Dexsoft Games!
I am also a big fan of both Coflek-Gnorg and 3-D-C from Renderosity.
Just for more considerations.
I really like Stonemason's stuff, but you've already seen that name in here ;)
jrm21's method is similar to what I do, except that when I have my scene set up, and begin to hide the elements, for example, the foreground elements, I'll Save As and give it a unique name, such as, scene1 background, and then the other versions I'll give similar names such as, scene1 mid-ground, and scene1 foreground. Then, in the Render room, I add them to the Batch Queue to render them.
If the scene is large and takes a long time to load or uses a lot of memory, I may go into the background scene and delete the foreground elements, and so on. I always leave a version with the entire scene intact in case I make a mistake and need to revert. Planning is very important.
This video is not an interior, but is rendered with layering in mind.
http://youtu.be/iS-sNje4k0o
This video shows an example of layering:
http://youtu.be/79fyKOSUTsg
If you can, shoot the video with the two CG characters using stand in actors (or props) so you can get the eye-lines and depth to feel right. You buy one of those blue or green body suits that cover the stand in from head to toe and zap it out in AE---I was able to do that with Movie Edit Pro with pretty good success. You can use the finished video in Carrara to help animate the CG character as well (matching position, movements, etc). Also, shoot as many insert, reaction, and POV shots as you can--they come in real handy when you want to add that line of dialogue that no one ever said on camera!
That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth...good luck!
I looked through most of their work tonight. I must say, it's impressive and reasonably priced. I saw all kinds of possibilities - gives me hope. Thanks for helping to narrow the search. One question is they mention use with Poser and Daz Studio. If I use these in Carrara will there be any problems? I'd hate to get my heart set on something only to find out I can't use it.
THE BLACK HOLE!!! Love that movie. Great job on the animation. I think I understand the concept of layering, now it's a matter of putting it into practice so my brain can grasp it.
I have visions of my hovering robot to be similar to the ones in The Black Hole, only slimmer and not as cartoonish. There's a round blue light in its chest area and he has some mechanical arms. For the movie, I'd want a CG robot and a real one because there would be times when the real one could be in a scene without too much movement. But when we shoot outside, it has to be CG because I don't trust the wind.
So that brings up another question. Octane is a rendering software but what makes it different from Carrara's render? Or maybe the C4D lite in AE? Is it necessary to have a separate rendering software or can I get photo realism with what I've got?
ooookay. The question you are asking is like saying "Can I take award winning photographs with this camera or do I need to buy a Nikon D4...?"
The answer is, if you cannot take good photos with what you have, what is the Nikon going to do for you? You still need to figure out how to take good photos. The camera - no matter how expensive - will not take the photos for you.... I have seen amazing photos with a pinhole camera. I've seen lousy shots from a really expensive camera....
Which *feature* exactly do you need in that other program that you do not have now? Not sure? Then no, you don't need it. Start with what you have. Feature length films have been made with less.
Octane is *very impressive* for its niche (one that it is practically making itself), it's a whole new class of renderer.... But have you seen any space scenes with it? No...? Part of that has to do with its reliance on HDR images as it's background and main light source. It is *very* good at what is called Image-based lighting.... but If you can't buy the HDR background, how will you make it? (Yes, it also does interiors, but I am making a point. If you are dropping down to just scene lights then Octane becomes less special).
Learn how to build scenes and texture and light them. Learn how much set you need to fill your shots, because presumably it's all just you doing this epic and you will discover - as we all do - that limits to ourselves (time, patience, skill) come before limits to most software. You will need to make sacrifices (only you know which) at certain times.... Any 3D knowledge you learn in Carrara will travel with you to other programs. Carrara is relatively easy to learn but there is still a curve, not just with the software itself but with your whole workflow. There's also a HUGE componant that will be done in AE, so re-read everything I just wrote and replace 3D with compositing and visual FX.
ooookay. The question you are asking is like saying "Can I take award winning photographs with this camera or do I need to buy a Nikon D4...?"
The answer is, if you cannot take good photos with what you have, what is the Nikon going to do for you? You still need to figure out how to take good photos. The camera - no matter how expensive - will not take the photos for you.... I have seen amazing photos with a pinhole camera. I've seen lousy shots from a really expensive camera....
Which *feature* exactly do you need in that other program that you do not have now? Not sure? Then no, you don't need it. Start with what you have. Feature length films have been made with less.
Octane is *very impressive* for its niche (one that it is practically making itself), it's a whole new class of renderer.... But have you seen any space scenes with it? No...? Part of that has to do with its reliance on HDR images as it's background and main light source. It is *very* good at what is called Image-based lighting.... but If you can't buy the HDR background, how will you make it? (Yes, it also does interiors, but I am making a point. If you are dropping down to just scene lights then Octane becomes less special).
Learn how to build scenes and texture and light them. Learn how much set you need to fill your shots, because presumably it's all just you doing this epic and you will discover - as we all do - that limits to ourselves (time, patience, skill) come before limits to most software. You will need to make sacrifices (only you know which) at certain times.... Any 3D knowledge you learn in Carrara will travel with you to other programs. Carrara is relatively easy to learn but there is still a curve, not just with the software itself but with your whole workflow. There's also a HUGE componant that will be done in AE, so re-read everything I just wrote and replace 3D with compositing and visual FX.
My Octane question was geared more for input on whether it made achieving realism easier than other renderers. I do understand the concept of sh*t in, sh*t out. Since you've picked up on the fact that I'm obviously new to this, I hadn't heard of Octane and I don't know what it can do. That's why I asked.
As far as learning the how to build and texture, that is something I actively seek. I do it through tutorials and forums like this where I can hit it at my own pace and ask questions to friendly people. I don't pretend to be a pro, and I doubt my film will be epic but, I'll be proud of our efforts either way.
I know why you asked. The answer is .... mmmmmaybeeeeee.
Here's a quick primer:
http://carraracafe.com/preview-of-octane-render-for-carrara/
Sci-Fi interiors, vehicles and architectural is something I would like to create with Carrara. The sets that you can buy may need be adjusted or redone for lighting, textures and surfaces to better fit Carrara's rendering engine. Here's a Carrara 7 lighting tutorial using a sci-fi interior. http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/29954/
For photorealism in CG, I can usually tell if something is rendered in a biased or unbiased rendering engine, such as Carrara verses Octane. There are clear differences. The issue is, I may like the way one render engine does lighting on a scene verses the other. It becomes subjective. Carrara can do photo realistic though, it just takes a while to hold the mouse(or pencil etc.) just right. :)
layne
You've received a lot of good information. It's worth heeding.
I'm going to give you my 2c worth.
One way to get a good looking scene is to understand your own limitations. What do you know about filmmaking? This will affect your final product. Do you know how to compose a scene? Do you know how to write a story?
These are rhetorical questions, just something to think about. I'm not the best Carrara artist by any stretch of my imagination, but I can do somethings well enough to "hide" my issues while I work to improve them. I can write (I wrote for independent tv stations and magazines), so rickety animation doesn't kill me in some viewers eyes, because I compose good shots, tell good stories, and I remember the 3 Bs (at least according to Samuel Z Arkoff).
Your background looks a little rickety, don't show so much of it.
Your lead actor freezes when it's time for his close up, shoot lots of coverage.
Need a police car parked outside the bad guys headquarters, but the local fuzz won't cooperate, get one of those red police lights from Radio Shack and don't show the exterior of the HQ.
Get my drift?
Play to your strengths, while you work on your weaknesses, and give the audience the best you have right now.
By the way, here is a really good set, plus it is a Prime item, so only $3.50
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/aj-research-center/101715
That primer video looks pretty substantial. I mean huge. Since I'm so visual, the idea of a fast render is exactly what would help me get it right. Thanks for sharing this. I hope it's compatible with Mac.
It's not. No current Mac can run it. You'd need an older Mac Pro with a CUDA graphics card installed.
Thank you - your 2 cents as well as everyone else's is appreciated. My approach to filmmaking doesn't come from film school. I'm a movie lover, first and foremost. I study my favorite films. The most interesting aspect of the sci fi genre is the use of quick cuts. Some cuts are 4 seconds long, especially the action. I can use this to my advantage to cover those weak shots or any weirdness in my fx. A movie made about special effects is tedious to watch. As proud as we are of our 15 second clip, in reality, 12 seconds of it should probably hit the cutting room floor.
I've been planning this movie for a long time. The story is everything. I started writing the novels for the film because I needed to know what the back story was. I needed to establish that history so that the script would make sense. The series is ambitious, I'll admit. I've planned five books for this story to completely unfold. It will take years before I'm done. This "epic" started in 1977 when my cousin and I saw Star Wars. We lost our freaking minds. Our time was spent playing "Space Victories," a child's fantasy play that turned into a movie idea. My kids found the original script a few years ago and asked about it. The idea for this movie was born and I remade the plot. It's going to be fun, which is the whole idea, right?
It's not. No current Mac can run it. You'd need an older Mac Pro with a CUDA graphics card installed.
Well, poop.
Well, poop.
Just start learning and making your epic.... Remember what I said earlier about limits that you thought was just "blah blah blah"? ;-P
In a year there may be CUDA options for the new Mac Pro. In two years Octane might work on OpenCL/OpenGL. Don't wait around for it. Work on your knowledge and skills, and use the technology that's available at the time and that you can afford.
You're definitely right. I'm not going to wait. Carrara and After Effects are too captivating to resist. I'm going to set up some test shots this weekend and study the lighting aspect. Tutorials are great but, I need to get some footage to get my brain oriented.
I shoot most of my action footage at lower accuracy settings using just the right lights to get the job done - and Carrara produces really fast renders for me. When I compare these to the higher accuracy ones, I really can see the difference in sharpness. So if you want each frame to have sharp clarity, you'll lose a little speed by turning object accuracy up higher, but Carrara can really render, if you don't get too crazy with extra "Instant Fix" type stuff that can bog down a render. Perhaps Instant fix isn't the right explanation. But an example of what I mean is using the Indirect Lighting in the Global Illumination portion of the render engine. This makes each frame take much longer than it would if I just set my own lighting effects manually.
I am going for a somewhat realistic appearance, but without trying to sell it as real. So I've spent the last few years working out my lighting and camera techniques to get the speed at the look that I'm after. It actually didn't take years to create this look... I've just been at it for years because I'm still designing stuff that I need.
But over those years, since 2010, I've reduced some of the image maps I use from 4,000 x 4,000 + pixels to 1 or 2,000, created universal lighting systems that work for all of my outdoor scenes, and use what I've learned there to light my indoor scenes. For me, speed is very important. Earlier I mentioned that I can really notice the difference, since I am filming at lower accuracy, and I've come to like the look that I'm getting. Since I started working on this, there came a 3d animated TV show that captivated me: Star Wars - The Clone Wars, on Cartoon Network. They use a really blocky shape, almost sharp edged look to their characters - purposefully stylized. I am going for something in between that and real, while maintaining an obvious, "I'm not trying to represent real, here" look.
If I didn't go for this method, I might have to change how I do other things, like lighting and shaders, and such - because, over the past years, I've been optimizing my things to work well under my low-accuracy workflow.
Anyways, I liked your story of how you began writing your epic.
I have recently watched every special features clip from every Star Wars movie and from The Clone Wars. I've also found on YouTube the making of "Fire and Ice", by Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta, where they rotoscoped the entire cartoon from actual video footage - the same technique Bakshi used in his Lord of the Rings.
In watching this stuff I come to realize that my limitations by using Carrara (compared to the higher end apps) are nothing compared to what they had to go through. Lucas didn't have what we have today. He is actually the one responsible for bringing a lot of this stuff about. "Pixar" was actually the name of an animation computer that his employees developed for 3d animation. The team wanted to make a feature-length 3d animated movie, he didn't, so he sold that part of the company to them, and they became Pixar and made Toy Story.
But if I had to do all of this stuff on video frames, I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't have got into this in the first place.
In this image, I'm using the low-accuracy but it still takes a bit for each frame to render, since it's a chase scene and I need all of those buildings to be actual buildings - not background fakes. But Carrara's Batch Queue rendering really saves me from losing too much time over long renders, when I need them. Just render as I sleep and work, and check the render(s) when I get home many hours later ;)
...and then I use a couple of lesser expensive movie editors: Sony Movie HD (as opposed to Vegas Pro), Corel VideoStudio Pro X6, are the beefiest that I have at the moment.
Dartanbeck - you have a lot of experience. I've been looking at your youtube stuff too. Great job, man! I think it's been said here before but, most artists have many different tools in their war chests. While they may have a few "go to" methods, if it gets the job done then it's the right one.
I signed up for Adobe Creative Cloud because it didn't cost that much and I get access to everything. I like how Premiere Pro is so intuitively easy and everything from AE to Audition (sound) to Speedgrade (color correction) compliment each other as a smooth workflow. It works for me.
So cool! Yeah, that cloud subscription is certainly an excellent deal, and a great answer! Always having the latest and greatest, too!
The point I wanted to make, even though I never really said it, is something like this:
Don't get bogged down with what you think you have to do because someone else says it's how it must be done. Use your own eyes and mind - your own imagination to realize the final output. I love this quote from George Lucas, from when he didn't realize that Star Wars was going to go Blockbuster:
"If I can fill a room with friends, and most of them enjoy the movie, that's good enough for me"
or something like that.
Well it's true that many of Carraras settings are there to help you get more results. It is a very complete software pack, attempting to please many different styles and uses. So while Global Illumination might be slow and cumbersome to this person and those over there, too... it might be the perfect solution for you - it all depends on how the lights are set up - or not :)
If I took every bit of advice to heart, and made sure that that's all I used, I'd likely never get anywhere. Heed advice from others, yet never (especially in Carrara) feel opposed to trying something new.
Anyways, I hope your project goes well, and I hope you'll share some of your process with us along the way!
My YouTube channel definitely needs some new animations. It's all just test render throw aways. My main stuff is sort of under lock and key... but I might have to break some of that out soon.
Anyways, I hope your project goes well, and I hope you'll share some of your process with us along the way!
My YouTube channel definitely needs some new animations. It's all just test render throw aways. My main stuff is sort of under lock and key... but I might have to break some of that out soon.
You should. I want to make some little progress report webisodes mainly to keep myself on task. When production gets underway I can start enhancing the website.
Cool idea! Perhaps I'll adopt something similar.
Thanks :)