Toy car

[agep]

First of all I must admit that this render is inspired by Fabrice and his keychain. But I hope that you don't consider this as an rip off (even though I used an wooden floor texture). I have been trying to understand radiosity, and its hard but interesting. MUCH to learn yet I went to an store and bought an 5$ toy car and scanned the box, then I created the box in A:M and used the scanned image as an decal. Then I rigged the box to make it foldable. Hope you like it

 

btw:

render size: 1280x1024

render time: *coughing*36hr*coughing*

 

Regards

Stian Ervik Wahlvåg

 

Image has been updated to final version

[KenH]

Aha. I see the screw came in handy. That's a great render. As far as a crit goes, I'd probably say the wood is too saturated busy looking. (Did you render it as an EXR? ) It seems to take you're eye off the cars. I love the boxes too....especially the raised creases in them. Are they modelled into the box mesh?

 

Also, for a bit of variety, you could change the colour of one of the cars.

Edited August 13, 2005 by KenH

[Korken]

Wow! Looks realistc in my eyes!

 

Do you have any Index of Refraction (spelled right?) on the plastic?

Because I think it looks like just a transparent part.

 

Keep it up!

 

//Korken

[martin]

Hash wants to change the images in TaoA:M to only those that include data, so that anyone can examine the project and find out how to get great renders. I know you've been kind enough to donate to the "Extras" CD before; perhaps you would allow the data for this image to be included with V13?

[robcat2075]

It looks real good.

 

There's an unnatural brightness under some of the objects... what causes that?

[thejobe]

wow now that is cool

me like

the only thing i see off a little is the wood, not quite sure what it is but something seems off

[agep]

Thanks for the comments friends

 

Also, for a bit of variety, you could change the colour of one of the cars.

Good idea, any color in mind?

 

Do you have any Index of Refraction (spelled right?) on the plastic?

Because I think it looks like just a transparent part.

 

It is some modelled bumps on the plastic, and a tiny bit of reflections that reflects the wall textures

 

perhaps you would allow the data for this image to be included with V13?

Of course Martin

 

There's an unnatural brightness under some of the objects... what causes that?

I have noticed them, but I have no clue why. Guess I need to ask Ypossiant

 

the only thing i see off a little is the wood, not quite sure what it is but something seems off

To dark maybe?

[NancyGormezano]

To dark maybe?

 

What seems a little funny to me is that the floor has "hot spots" & the color saturation (in the floor) appears greater in the distance (from the viewer). Also perhaps the floor texture is a bit too blurry for a natural wood floor - might need some extra bump to give the illusion of ridges - unless you're going for a wood vernier or synthetic look. I love the scuff marks.

 

It's a wonderful image, the way it is. I only offer the above on what I perceive is your goal - realism.

[patrick_j_clarke]

Looking GOOD!! LOVE the cars.

 

I think your floor is too "radiant". I think that's why it's so saturated. It doesn't look like the floor has a ton of gloss, so I'd drop the RADIANCE down a bit and see what happens...

 

Great work!

 

- pjc

[oakchas]

Stian,

 

In Showcase, we are not supposed to show what we can do with our digital cameras... This picture belongs on a photog. forum somewhere. Here, we're only supposed to showcase what we model in A:M...

 

Okay, maybe it's not quite that good... but it's close. The additional yellow radiance in the wood could easily be 'splained by a poor photog having to use clamp on incandescent lights with alum (spun) shades... The wood is close enough to the real thing... with a wax finish instead of varnish.

 

The reflections off the edges of the boxes onto the wood are the only telltales I would "see" without picking it apart.

 

I believe you could post this on ebay and 99% of people would believe you are showing a real model...

 

Now I've got to plan on another year upgrade of A:M to get this in the tutes... with all the data...

 

Very nice. I only hope I can do as well... ½ as well would be goodenuf!

[ypoissant]

Very nice render Stian.

 

Here are some comments:

 

1) Indeed, the floor looks way too saturated and contrasted and makes the rest of the objects appear to float or not to live in the same world. That is a tricky issue to get along when atempting photoreal.

 

The main problem here is that the wood texture color space does not match the boxes color spaces. Currently, the wood saturation, brightness and contrast is way above that of the boxes graphics which should normally be much more eye catching.

 

My guess is that the two texture maps do not come from the same capturing devices. You mention that you scanned the boxes. But I doubt you also scanned the wood floor. You probably photographed the floor.

 

Now, you must match the wood texture saturation, lightness and contrast with that of the boxes (not the reverse). You can do that in photoshop where you would load the two maps and pick your eyedroper tool and note the saturation and brightness from the HSB display of the brightest yellow and orange colors on the box. Now, using a "Hue, Saturation..." and a "contrast-brightness" adjustment layers, you must decrease both the saturation, lightness and contrast until you get a match with those of the boxes. The attached modified render I did in Photoshop gives you an idea.

 

2) The shadows are missing from that render. Theyt are obviously there but they are too light and too soft to really support the objects in the scene.

 

Make sure your shadow darkness is set at 100% and reduce the width of your light to maybe 50% or their current size.

 

And of course, never, ever, use z-buuffered shadows in a radiosity render.

 

3) The light leaks under the boxes and the car. There are two issues to consider here.

 

The first thing to consider, and the most important, is the thickness of your boxes cardboard. Any object you model to put in a radiosity scene must have some thickness to all their surfaces. When photons are deposited on surfaces, they will show through on both sides of the surface. If your surface have thickness (is double walled) then the second wall will stop their leekeage. I see that your boxes cardboard seem to have thickness. But it may not be thick enough. And your car may not have thickness too, especially under the car, which leaks light on the floor under the car.

 

Note that the larger the "Sample area" the thicker must be the surfaces.

 

Second, you can somewhat control the effect of the light leak by enlarging the photon mapping "Sampling area" and "Photon Samples". You will have to experiment to find a set of parameters that work well for your particular scene. Increasing those values have the effect of bluring the light leaks and they become less obvious.

 

4) Your floor is missing bumps to make it look more realistic.

 

On wooden floor, the darker strates are harder and the lighter strates are softer. THe effect os that the darker strates forms mounds while the lighter strates forms valleys.

 

So you take your bitmap, convert it to gray, invert it and basically apply it as a decal specifying bump type of decal. You then control the visual appearance of the bumps by adjusting the percent value. I also like to add darker lines to the bump bitmap to add groves that mark the separations between the planks.

[oakchas]

Yves,

 

You are scary, man! You are correct, of course. Everything you said makes perfect sense. The bump mapping on the pine (fir?) floor would make the realism too real... Hard vs Soft wood in the grain.

 

My question on this subject would be... would a digital camera pick that up? at what rez? I wonder if a 4 MP would be nearly sufficient enuf to get that?

 

Wow, you impart so much knowledge here... just wow. But I still have to wonder how much is enough to "get by?"

 

A:M does such a good job... at stills, at animation... And I think I understand Martin's statements about the necessity of all this "depth" of realism for animation.. It probably isn't necessary...

 

In my other hobby, woodworking for example... when I build something, i see the flaws... no one else does... the eye lies... unparallel lines are "forced" parallell, Joints appear seamless, etc... I see the unparallelism, the too large gap in the joint... the non builder does not...

 

Thank you for your expertise, you have given me something to strive for.

 

WOW... and even all of that doesn't detract (for me) from the well done scene of Stians

[ypoissant]

My question on this subject would be... would a digital camera pick that up? at what rez? I wonder if a 4 MP would be nearly sufficient enuf to get that?

 

...

 

And I think I understand Martin's statements about the necessity of all this "depth" of realism for animation.. It probably isn't necessary...

A 4M pixel camera should be enough. But if you intend to render your map this close, you would have to photograph it that close too.

 

As for how far you go for realism? I fully agree with Martin view that realism is not needed for animation. In fact it is not at all required for stills done with an illustration purpose either.

 

I personally prefer an artist who have developped a stylized recognizable style. And this is not generally based on realism. Of course, a realist artist can distinguish himself with subject matter and composition. But as far as color and light scheme are concerned, the choice of realism pretty much impose strong limits to the artistic freedom.

 

I guess, one untold story of realism in 3D is that it requires a lot of knowledge that lies more on the scientific / technical / analytic side than truely intuitive / artistic expression.

 

The underlying argument here is that it is not sufficient to just trow a ton of photons in a scene to get a realistic render. You must also get all your surface properties (textures) right and within the same color space, and all the surface details right. Here I only touched the bump maps for instance. But what about reflectivity maps, and specular size maps? In this scene, I would also use soft reflection. The hard stratas of the wood would need to have a smaller specular size than the soft stratas.

 

And then, when that is done, you still need to take care of the next surface property. That sort of knowledge seems to never end when your goal is to do realism. And this is where the expression "Render Masturbation" takes all its meaning. It takes an immense amount of fiddling with the renderer before a truely satisfying realistic result comes out of it.

 

Is it worth it?

 

Which side of your brain do you prefer to use? Left side of the brain or right side?

 

If your main goal is to get a message or a mood across, then photorealism is clearly not the road that will get you there faster.

[agep]

Thank you very much Yves for the valuable information, and to all the others that have commentet this project so far. I'm doing a new testrender with lowered saturate on the floor (but I think I need to lower it even more), and I have increased the bump on the floor (there is actually an bump on it ) I did try to thicken the walls on the box, but not much, since the box is actually VERY thin. I also did a bevel on the folds instead of peaked, but even though I cant seem to get rid of the funny light on the folds.... Also darkened the shadows. Right now I'm at work and I'll upload the test when I get home. I didn't have much time to work on it last nigth, hope to do more to day after work.

 

Regards

Stian

[agep]

Okey. Here is the last render. How is the saturate now, still to high or to low? Did not get rid of the light/glow in the folds, also got this irritating glow under the short side of the complete box How about the shadows?

 

Yet to do: close the chassis of the car.

[NancyGormezano]

Saturation is better (ie more believable for me) but is higher than Yves's photoshopped image. I would say it's in the realm of believable wood flooring possibilities. So I think it's now a matter of taste. And of course, Yves would be best to judge in terms of accuracy.

 

What is now bothering me & I should have mentioned before, is that the position of the "flap" of the box nearest to the car seems to be inducing an optical illusion - sort of Durer-esque. Box appears to be floating or "standing on the flap" - yet of course it isn't. It's difficult to make out just how that flap is folded out. Perhaps it should be rearranged?

[agep]

Thanks for the comment

 

What is now bothering me & I should have mentioned before, is that the position of the "flap" of the box nearest to the car seems to be inducing an optical illusion - sort of Durer-esque. Box appears to be floating or "standing on the flap" - yet of course it isn't. It's difficult to make out just how that flap is folded out. Perhaps it should be rearranged?

I see your point, thanks. Have done an new arrangement, better?. Also added softness on the reflections, and I think it looks overall better except for the plastic on the boxes (feel like I lost some of the roughness, guess I'll need to tweak the cp's more). Any comments or tips? still get the light on the folds though....

 

Regards

Stian

[NancyGormezano]

The arrangement of the flap definitely reads better.

 

As for the plastic on the boxes - perhaps you might want to introduce some waviness, or creases in the clear cellophane? or even some tears? As it is now - it's very pristine. (Obviously I didn't open these boxes ). I don't have any cellophaned boxes handy so I can't really address the reflections - but are you using a closed set ? - that is with something for the boxes to reflect ? I would also think the cellophane would have some glare, preventing a clear view into the box. some Fingerprints maybe?

 

Reality is tough. I stay far far away from it in everything I do. And that includes A:M

 

But I'm really intrigued by trying to figure out what makes imagery look real. I'm guessing it's lots of imperfections, and lots of noise.

 

Good job.

[ypoissant]

Floor saturation is much better and believable. I would lower the floor contrast a little though.

 

Here's another observation about reality: The boxes should be more reflective and with a smaller specularity size where there is black paint. And the interior should be almost completely diffuse (with no reflection and specularity). Also, the transparent plastic on the box should show at least some form of manipulation. I would put at least a bump map if not a displacement map there.

 

As for light leaks, could you post a bird's eye view of the choreography along with your radiosity properties?

[nerrazzi]

Nice work man!

[agep]

Latest render. Getting closer? I did increase the bumps on the plastic and the reflectivity, but I'll need to increase it even more. Also changed the spec on the boxes and the cars. reduced saturation and contrast on the floor. I'm getting blind on this project so please tell if there is something to adjust.

 

Regards

Stian

[nixie]

Personally, I think the wood texture is just too busy! If It were me, Id think about trying a different surface or if not at least a simpler wood texture. If you look at Fabrices, its very simple and just enhances his models. Other than that its very nice and the composition is fine.

 

Nixie

[NancyGormezano]

Yes indeedy - I like it better - I think toning down the floor worked well. I am a loss at what else to suggest. As I believe Fabrice found out - it's easier to get the illusion with a simpler composition. I can offer no more, I am out of my league.

[Fab]

Very nice work Stian ! Your render is better each time. Your MCLaren model is awesome too, I like it.

[ypoissant]

I'd say that concerning the lighting and texturing, you pushed it far enough. Now you need to think about your composition.

 

In your current composition, there are too much space where it is not required and too little where it would be important. There are too much space at the top and left side of your composition and way too little space at the right side.

 

The floor is acting as a frame while the boxes should take on this role much more. The boxes should frame your car.

 

And your car should be the unmistakable center of interest. Right now, your car is crammed in the lower left side of your composition. This cramming is reinforced by the fact that it is turned toward the outher left-lower direction. But it doesn't even have space to move in this direction.

 

In the attached quick composition, I widened the image so that the car have more space in front to move. I also moved the car so that it is better centered. Some overlap with the box is not a bad idea too. But now that I look at it, I would move the car a little more in the north-east direction. Then I moved the plastic base so that it participate in the framing of the car with the boxes. This is just a quick shuffling of some objects and of course, I couldn't rotate the objects around but that gives you an idea of some explorations in composition with your subject.

 

A simple and effective rule to follow is the what is called the Golden Section. For starters in composition, this is an easy to apply rule but don't get too carzy about it. This is only a tool that can help you think about your composition. Another generally good idea to apply is to use objects in the scene to frame your main subject. That is framing.

[agep]

Thanks for the tips Yves, and all the time and effort you have been using on this project of mine. I'll take a look at it when I get home from work.

 

*edit* thanks for the links

 

Very nice work Stian ! Your render is better each time. Your MCLaren model is awesome too, I like it.

Thanks Fab. It's you who inspired me you know:-)

[Mr. Jaqe]

Once again I'm amazed by talent showed here on this forum. Simply amazing work.

 

I'm not very familiar with neither lighting, nor composing, so I'll just give praise

 

Again: Awsome work!

[dimos]

Yves,

 

You never stop amazing me with your combination of science and artistry. You understand properties of lights and textures like I haven't seen anybody before to such depth, and yet you still have a very mature and in depth artistic grasp on the whole image as well. You are a very important man here and don't you forget it.

 

Stain,

 

Your image just gets better and better and better and better.......and so on!

 

Dimos

[ypoissant]

Thanks

[agep]

Here is the final version of the toycar. I did try to move the plasticbase, but it didn't look as good as I hoped, so I moved it back again. Rendertime: 40hr

 

A big thanks to Yves for all the great input and suggestion. I agree with Dimos. Yves have helped me a lot, not just on this project, and he have given me many big aha-experiences on many things, like beveling and skyrig. Thanks Yves

[Zaryin]

Hey, that turned out great. Congrats on finishing it. I think my longest render was something like 49 hrs. That wasn't because of radiosity, just a slow pc .

[Fab]

It is really an impressive image !!!

[agep]

Thanks.

btw, I uploaded the image to cgtalk: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php...839#post2564839

[Slipin Lizard]

Well agree with the other guy... its... its.. its a fake! Come on, that's a computer image?? What is everyone blathering about tweek this and fix that... oh man if I could only even come close to something that good. And Stian told me "he's still learning"... you're making me cry man. I think there should be a seperate category where the stuff is at least something that people like me might be able to achieve in this life time! Great work!

 

Cal

[phnxpyre]

Thats really well done. I'm amazed on how realistic and detailed the whole image is.

[agep]

Thanks for the nice comments

[Elm]

Great, well done!

[Russ]

*post removed*

 

that'll teach me for not reading the whole thread! lol

[Russ]

WOOPS!!

 

MY BAD!! ----------- I didn't read the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread! lol (Shame on me)

 

The final pic looks perfect... very well done.

 

What a plonker i feel! ...D'oh!

[chase]

I saw the pics back in some norwegian boards. I'm in shock. I cant believe how good this images are, they look so realistic, when you first showed them to me on msn i thoutgh (spelling) that you were kidding with me! This makes me proud of beeing norwegian! :-D