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
I know that you have and love PhotoShop, but I'd like to add that we can also composite images together directly in Carrara! ;)
Man, I love this software!
Really??? Is that anything that that carrara doesn't do?? Lolololol
Ok, I see I have really lots to learn about carrara.
I use photoshop since I'm like 14... in secondary school my area was photo and video, started to use it there... so I'm used to and comfortable with it. Never really tried other image software, in school was always adobe - photoshop, illustrator, premier... So, it was not really like I loved the software and chose to work with it. But I like working with it yes. Actually for digital painting I was thinking in exploring manga studio... but am already learning ds and carrara so just decided to keep with photoshop so I don't have to learn other software at the same time. Even though I keep learning new things in photoshop... think the learning never ends...
carrara... that one is taking my heart for sure!! It's just amazing!!!
Yeah... Adobe makes some fine software. It's good to have an 'in' with them, for sure.
As for Carrara... yup, I'm a total addict! See? Says so over my avatar! LOL
The issue is the crashing. Trying to load an image of her dimensions into the Backdrop to render the second layer may defeat the purpose. In this case, the image editor is the way to go.
It is very basic compositing. I usually use it as a guide to set up lighting to match a background plate, and then do the final composition in PS if it is a still or Final Cut Pro if it's an animation.
For this scene, you're best off trying to composite in an image editor.
Opinions, opinions! :ahhh: LOL
Can you tell that me and ep are brothers?
Good to have all this different opinions. Than i have lots of things to try.
In this case I think EP technic is good exactly for what he said - render all separately will make me understand better where is the problem.
Never the less is always nice to know new features of carrara ;)
I've really learned a lot with this... Even that none of the previous solutions have worked, I got out with much more knowledge, and good knowledge. Batch render, saving irradiance maps... it's priceless... and about settings and lights and clouds...
Yeah, you 2 are brothers indeed... You are always completing one another... You both teach great things, but when you start talking like this you just give all the pros and cons of each technic ;) in a very natural way. Is great... you never have that thing of what's right or wrong, just sharing the different ways to do it, why each of you prefer that way... You 2 are really great!! Happy to know you, even in distance. :)
Thanks! And, yes, evilproducer is very right in these things... he tests this stuff.
Meeting him in person was a real trip! He really is a producer! And he's quite stunning at it! He produces his brothers, whom are actors and one (his twin) is a director. It was an amazing visit!
Now that's a nice family!! Everyone working together! ;)
Anything we might have seen?
My twin used to do a Podcast called How-To Girl with Madeline Merced. Seems to be off-line now. At their height, they had an appearance on the Rachel Ray show, had access to the North American World Chocolate Masters competition that not even the Food Channel had. I collaborated with them on a couple things, including providing them with a title theme song, some Raydream CG and Bryce CG animations for an episode of their show. I helped video tape a chocolate fashion show at the French Pastry School in Chicago. The episodes seem to be off-line now.
My own work has been pretty much amateur, though I did make a spoof of the Blaire Witch Project that was actually a bit of a local cult favorite- all before Youtube hit big, so it went viral only locally by copied DVDs and dubbed VHS tapes. They're not safe for work!
The serialized version on youtube:
The Wildwood Wildman Part 1.
The Wildwood Wildman Part 2.
The Wildwood Wildman Part 3
The Wildwood Wildman Part 4
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean, but the way this is written touches on a pet peeve of mine.
DPI (by which you, and Carrara actually mean PPI) is irrelevant and has no bearing on image size or quality when stored in digital form.
If you output an image at 8268x5906, that is the number of pixels you are outputting. It doesn't matter what you set "Pixels per Inch" (or DPI) to. Set it to 10, set it to 10,000 - you still only have 8268x5906 pixels. Pixels do NOT change as a result of changing PPI.
The only time a "PPI" setting means anything is on physical output. If you have an image the is 300 x 300 pixels and set it to "300 ppi" the image will print at 1" x 1". If you set the same image to 100 ppi it will print at 3" x 3". Either way, the same exact amount of pixels will be printed. Even at that, you will typically size your output in a print dialog box (fill the 8.5 x 11 sheet, etc) in which case the PPI setting of the image is effectively ignored. The size you specify the print at determines the effective PPI of the output.
If you print that 8268x5906 image on a 5x7 sheet, your image resolution is 1181 PPI, no matter what the file settings show. Same image printed at 10 x 14 has a resolution of 590 PPI. (Of course, the _actual_ printed resolution will be limited by your output device).
If the image is being viewed on a screen, then PPI pretty much has no meaning. If you zoom in or zoom out on screen, you are effectively changing the PPI of the image "on the fly," While being limited by the resolution of your screen, unless you have a screen that can show 8268x5906 pixel, you would not be able to view the entire image on the screen at once at 100%. To see the entire image, you would have to "zoom out" thus changing the PPI at which you are viewing (as PPI relates to the original image file).
Some programs allow you to create images using dimensions... such as 3" x 3" and ask you for a "PPI" value when doing so. Then, PPI is relevant because it will determine the pixel size of the image. Basically the reverse math of the above example.
As another poster mentioned, I believe that Carrara ignores the "DPI" setting in the output panel, and outputs all images using a 72 PPI value.
When you bring that image into photoshop (or similar), it will use the 72 value, but your image will still be the original 8268x5906 pixels. When you choose to "resize" the image in Photoshop, one of two things will happen:
1. If you do NOT select "resample image" NOTHING will happen to the original image or existing pixels. The file will simply be tagged with the new PPI value. You will still have a 8268x5906 image, but an output device will attempt to print the image at a different size.
2. If you DO select "resample image" photoshop will attempt to resize the image and create new pixels to "fill in the blanks." Your 8268x5906 image @ 72ppi would measure roughly 115" x 82". Photoshop will convert that to an image at the same size, but with 300 pixel per inch. That means a 34500px x 24600px image. File size would increase accordingly. (That would be a big file).
FWIW, DPI has to do with the printing process where screens are used. It is somewhat related to, but not the same as PPI. This DPI is also different than the DPI ratings used on inkjet printers (which have no relation to PPI). People tend to use the terms interchangeably, but they are very different things.
Don't mean to be the "PPI" police and mean no offense. Just passing along the information.
No video isn't the problem. I want samples of the chocolate.
A chocolate fashion show? Sounds better than a Victoria's Secret fashion show. At least at the chocolate show I might have a chance of getting a taste.
:)
My twin used to do a Podcast called How-To Girl with Madeline Merced. Seems to be off-line now. At their height, they had an appearance on the Rachel Ray show, had access to the North American World Chocolate Masters competition that not even the Food Channel had. I collaborated with them on a couple things, including providing them with a title theme song, some Raydream CG and Bryce CG animations for an episode of their show. I helped video tape a chocolate fashion show at the French Pastry School in Chicago. The episodes seem to be off-line now.
My own work has been pretty much amateur, though I did make a spoof of the Blaire Witch Project that was actually a bit of a local cult favorite- all before Youtube hit big, so it went viral only locally by copied DVDs and dubbed VHS tapes. They're not safe for work!
The serialized version on youtube:
The Wildwood Wildman Part 1.
The Wildwood Wildman Part 2.
The Wildwood Wildman Part 3
The Wildwood Wildman Part 4
It's seems like you had great fun!! Nice to see!!!
You are completely right in most of what you said, agreeing with everything.
Just one thing. This that I told about at 300 dpi the image comes with more pixels than the ones I defined, was what it happened to me in all renders I did so far. I checked them all in photoshop. They all had much more pixels than I had defined...
About the difference about ppi and dpi... I know there is, and you understand much more than me as I can see for your explanations...
But here is the question. You said and very right that:
If you do NOT select "resample image" NOTHING will happen to the original image or existing pixels. The file will simply be tagged with the new PPI value. You will still have a 8268x5906 image, but an output device will attempt to print the image at a different size.
This pixel value I gave is for an image with 70x50cm. So let's say I just rendered at 72 dpi with this dimensions... If I will just change the dpi to 300 but keep the printing at the same size, there's a lot of pixels that will be created right? As you said the printer will attempt to print in a different size, but if we don't let it, it will create pixels just like in the case of photoshop to fill the blank. At least was what they told me in the printer graphic. All that I was trying to say is that this will actually decrease print quality since that pixels, at least in that printer, will be created randomly with a proximity color match. So, all that I was saying is that I already got better results printing at 72dpi which was the original image file (in this case a photography) than when I passed it to 300dpi and kept the dimensions where the image ended up with some visual noise. So, the only thing was, if I will change the dpi information, the best to do is to resize the image accordingly so I keep quality. Right??
Ok... There's the confusion... My fault...
I was trying to replicate to see what I was explaining wrong, cause in my head makes logic, but when I try to explain even to me sounds confusing.
The thing is:
1st image: I usually define the image size by the size I want rather than the pixels. I know what are the correspondent pixels, but I usually do this way. In this case I put 7x5cm so that could be easily rendered.
2nd image: As you said and well, carrara don't render with ppi information, just 72 by default. The pixels are the ones that appear in carrara if you change from cm to pixels with the settings I had (591x827), but the image is no longer 5x7, it is now 20,85x29,17cm
3rd image: if you change to 300dpi, of course the amount of pixels will increase. these are the pixels photoshop created, as you said.
4rd image: if you then put the size values you define in carrara (5x7cm) you have again just the amount of pixels you rendered.
I explained in a wrong way, but the logic is the same. In here you have exactly the pixels that were rendered, not created pixels...
I understand enough to make logic in my mind... not enough to explain with logic...
But the thing is, just changing the image to 300dpi without resizing accordingly is not a good idea if you are going to print...
*image 3 and 4 are in the wrong order
Just to make sure I wan't putting my foot too far in my mouth, I did two test renders.
First was at 800 x 600, 72 "DPI"
Second was at 800 x 800, 300 "DPI"
I opened both in Photoshop. Same exact image. Both were 800x600 pixels in size. Both file size were exactly the same. Carrara actually included the correct PPI info in the file. One showed 72 PPI and the other 300 PPI.
I see what you are saying about image size, etc. But here is my point.
Both images I created are exactly the same. If I print them out at 10 x 12, they will look the same. If I print them out at 500" x 500" they will look the same.
Carrara outputs an image size based on pixels, so the whole "DPI/PPI" issue makes no difference. It is simply important to output the PIXELS that you need for your final use.
If you are printing an image that is 8268x5906 (roughly 27" x 19.5") then your 8268x5906 Carrara output will have an effective resolution of right around 300 dpi, which is "high-res" and appropriate for most uses (there are situations where you might want higher resolution, but let's skip that for now).
If you render you at 8268x5906 from Carrara, it does't matter what the "DPI" setting is. Your image will be 8268x5906 pixels. When you print that at 8268x5906 it will still be 300 PPI because that is how many pixels are in the image for each inch. There may be functional considerations in changing the PPI value to 300 (the printer software may be looking to that value for something), but it will not change any of the pixel data in the image file.
Printers usually assume people don't know what they are doing and thus explain things incompletely. I see this a lot.
The "correct" terminology should be "we need a 300 PPI image @ 100%." If you give them a 300PPI image, but print it at 200%, the _output_ is no longer 300PPI. Likewise, if you have the same image but print it at 50%, the _output_ is higher than 300 PPI.
Im not sure if we are mixing some terminology here. As it relates to the image being discussed:
You are rendering a 8268x5906 image. From Carrara, this will be the _exact_ same image regardless of the value in Carrara's "DPI" box.
I just looked and never realized you can render from Carrara as inches or cm. You are correct... if you render based on in or cm, then the "DPI" setting will absolutely affect image size. That's the reason I work in pixels - it is a constant and involves less math. Since you were giving pixel dimensions for your image, I assumed you were outputting as pixels.
Your 8268x5906 when printed at 70cm x 50cm has a resolution of 300PPI. This may or may not be necessary and depends on the printer being used. From what you have written, I gather your are going for high quality and the printer is asking for 300PI. As long as your Carrara render setting is 8268x5906, you have that covered.
To keep the printer happy, I suggest you simply render as 8268x5906 with the Carrara DPI render setting at "300." Again, it will produce the same exact image as a 8268x5906 image at 72 "DPI" but keep your printer happy. (I have seen printers call images "low resolution" simply because the PPI setting was less than 300, although the image has plenty of resolution for the intended use).
You are correct - it is always better to have enough pixels in the original image. If your printing device is expecting a 300PPI image, giving it anything less than an effective 300PPI image will result in either the graphics software of the printer creating pixels to fill in the gaps. This usually appears as "fuzzy" output.
But again, if you print your 8268x5906 image at 70cm x 50cm, the image has a resolution of 300PPI, no matter what the Cararra "DPI" or Photoshop "PPI" value is for the image. You are still taking the same 8268 pixels and spreading them across 70cm.
If you are working with a photograph or other images outside of Carrara, there may be different factors to consider. If you create a new image in photoshop, for example, and specify a size of 70cm x 50cm, then the initial PPI setting will be important. If you set it to 300, it will create a new image at 8268x5906 pixels. If you specify 72PPI, it will create a smaller image. This is because you are creating your image based on physical dimension (cm) instead of pixels.
If you create the new image in photoshop as 8268x5906 pixels, the value you specify in the "resolution" box for PPI will have no effect on image "size"... by size I mean the number of pixels in the image or the image file size.
*Sorry this seems like a ramble. I started out writing one thing and then edited when I realized you are rendering in cm, and not in pixels.
Sorry about that. As mentioned, I see where the confusion is.
Also, I gave some wrong info about Carrara. Apparently (at least in 8.5) the "DPI" issue is corrected. This may have added to the confusion.
When I render an image at 5 in x 7 in @ 300 "DPI" it opens in Photoshop with correct values: 1500 px x 2100 px with a 300PPI setting. You may be using an older version (which I recall didn't honor its "DPI" setting).
I still think it is easier to figure out how may pixels you need for your image and use that value for output. Especially if you are asking for a 300 dpi output and getting a 72dpi file.
Actually, I already had files that opened in photoshop with 72dpi, at least one with 96... all with the same settings... I have carrara 8.5 pro so... don't really know what's happening. But the pixels are all there, and as you say, that's the important thing!!
Thanks a lot. You actually explained everything better than I ever heard before!! :) I now understand better what the printer actually want!! Thanks :)
After taking a small vacation of carrara, just some days, I got back!
Starting again, I went to review the clouds. I didn't got into to volumetric clouds learning yet, just using the same Tim Payne sky that Phil used on the tutorial. In the instances tab, there's a group for the volumetric clouds. In that group there's lots of subgroups called WindsweptCumulus. This ones were actually intercepting each other. In the image I show here, they are not anymore, I move them so they don't intercept anymore.
Anyway each of this groups have a lot of "boxes" (the clouds) and they are all intercepting each other. So I was just trying to figure out what are the things that cannot intercept each other.
The renders will slow down a lot if the clouds intersect. With a faster machine, it may not be that big a deal, but sometimes it can cause issues. The bounding boxes represent the clouds, and the clouds should be in the center of the box. They won't extend to all the edges of the box unless you've chosen a box shape and filled it completely.
There is a way to get the look of many clouds with just one cloud. I'm rendering at the moment, so I'll post it up here later. I would love to give credit where it is due, it wasn't my idea. I learned it from someone here a long time ago and I can't recall who.
Wooowwwwww!!! Great render!!! My mom was here when I came to see your answer and she actually thought it was a photo :)
I've already arranged the sky and am doing the high res render now. Just the sky... The rest I will do with alpha maps like you said. For the sky I'm not using indirect light. Actually in the other render the sky was better before the indirect light... well, better for a fantasy scene at least, maybe less realistic... I like indirect light for characters and props... make them seem less "plastic". At least for now don't see so much interest in using it just for the sky. Probably, as I progress I'll find all kinds of situations and this opinion might change...
I'm using batch render. Even though I'm doing one step at a time instead of making everything even on separated files and then queue them all in the batch render. Just really to dedicate to a part at a time since I've already got so much problems.
This scene I'm doing was to train... was a video from the Phill's training that was more about knowing the bases of atmosphere and sunbeams... But I got really interested in getting to the part of clouds... Good to know we can create good effects with just one cloud. Think my computer will be thankful :P
Also, nice to see your youtube account! You have there interesting vids :) Have to see them with calm :)
I don't like Indirect light for the clouds either. If I do use Global Illumination in an outdoor scene, I usually just use the Skylight.
Of course you don't need to use Global illumination at all if you don't want to. ;-) I'm still working on the lighting and the textures (notice the distorted texture on the rock in the foreground). I used a vertex dome with low intensity distant lights replicated on the surface to simulate reflected atmospheric light.
This is very nice!!! :) Yes, I can see the distortions. But is really really nice!! You know, seeing the kind of images we can do with 3d is actually what inspire me so much. Everything I've done so far, even liking them, is just actually training to get further!! I just can't wait to start learning to do terrains, plants and all this amazing natural environments!! I will put fairies and elves and dragons in the middle however :P
Back to the subject of the thread... The problem is the sky... definitely... The render crashed again... this time there was no strong reason for that. The most strange is that the render doesn't even get slow... it was going really fine and quick... and suddenly carrara closes unexpectedly... Something in those clouds don't work well in high res I think... Now that I know for sure that is the sky, I lowered the resolution a little. Let's see if with this resolution the render goes fine. It will be trial and error... but my stubbornness wants to see this scene completed after all this work :P
DONE!!!!!! :) finally!!!
I actually didn't take out to much resolution... But it seems it was enough... Lesson learned - sometimes just lower down a little the resolution spares us lots of troubles... :) Now lets go to the rest.
Hello guys!!! Here it is!!! The final work made with 2 images and alpha map render!!
I finnish it yesterday but was late and I was to tired to come here!!
But I wanted to show you... Thanks to all of you it's done.
Also, Dartan, have to say that you were right!! Something must gone corrupt in the other file. Since that with batch render I can pause the render anytime, I've started a new render with all together just to see what happens. I just started running it when I went to a walk with my dog and now that I'm going to make dinner, when I go to sleep later, so it's just in 11%. But the part of the arch was really slow before, and now runs smoothly... Am doing with all settings like before, just a little less pixels since the sky would crash down with that much, but is all in best mode and is going just fine.
Learned a lot with this... about lots of things... But one thing was really important to me to learn: sometimes the best way to save time is start over, cause you may not find the problem, it may be something you never understand completely... And if I know my computer can handle what I'm asking... well, probably was something I did even that I never find out what. And also... sometimes just a few pixels less make all the difference ;)
Thank you all!! I'm really grateful for all your help and all your teaching! :-)
It is a chance that you don't make animation!
The baby is beautiful, congratulation!
Thank you :) I don't make animation... yet!! Just a newbie trying to learn the most that I can the quick I can!
You're a pretty good one, keep it up ! ;-)