Cityscape POC

[Rodney]

Here's a proof of concept test of a cityscape cobbled together quickly with copies of a single nondescript cube.

The basic idea being to later replace that cube with a fully poseable master building capable of showing a variety of different details and facades.

Similar variables might control details outside the building such as lampposts/lights etc.

 

There are a few assumptions here:

- Detail would (optimally) only be created where the camera needs to go

(This might be directed through hot/active and cold/inactive zones)

- Streets and sidewalks would be created after the primary city is generated and approved for detailing (conversely the building could be created after the primary streets if vehicular POV is the goal)

- Locking in cardinal directions would be useful in generating various lighting conditions (morning, noon, dusk, dawn, etc.)

- The texturing phase would be a final pass over the details created with variations on the master building (the majority of buildings would all be decaled with a single stamp)

- Space would be reserved/created for the hero buildings and important details modeled separately

- Specific locations identified in the script would be tailored to augment the shots (more/less detail, lighting, blurring, etc.)

cityscape004.mov

[robcat2075]

That works well, Rodney!

[NancyGormezano]

very Nice!

[Rodney]

I left this rendering when I left home this morning and I kind of like the look.

It's toon rendered with SSAO.

I wasn't even sure if that was going to work...

 

The effect is a bit noisy on the cubes and the random lighting adds strange shadows but it was an interesting test.

I'll have to check but I think the noise is a side effect of a material effect constrained to the camera.

 

Added: Something that remains a bit elusive is that I often see a look in realtime view that I'd like to get in final rendering but the only way I can seem to to capture that is to screen capture the playback in the working window. It is often that look in the realtime window that makes me think (Aha! That's exactly the look I want!) only to end up with a different look after rendering out the shot. What I've posted here is definitely not that look.

cityscape_toon.mov

[NancyGormezano]

I left this rendering when I left home this morning and I kind of like the look.

It's toon rendered with SSAO.

I wasn't even sure if that was going to work...

 

The effect is a bit noisy on the cubes and the random lighting adds strange shadows but it was an interesting test.

I'll have to check but I think the noise is a side effect of a material effect constrained to the camera.

 

Added: Something that remains a bit elusive is that I often see a look in realtime view that I'd like to get in final rendering but the only way I can seem to to capture that is to screen capture the playback in the working window. It is often that look in the realtime window that makes me think (Aha! That's exactly the look I want!) only to end up with a different look after rendering out the shot. What I've posted here is definitely not that look.

 

Yes the noise is interesting - I thought it was on purpose and might have been a post process effect.

 

And as for the differences in real-time (progressive render) versus final rendered - post a screen capture of just 1 still versus the same rendered still...it may or may not be something that Steffen could fix?

 

I have also noticed that sometimes. Usually I like the rendered versions better, but I think? (not sure) I have noticed with toon rendering that things are not always what they seem.

[Rodney]

And as for the differences in real-time (progressive render) versus final rendered - post a screen capture of just 1 still versus the same rendered still...it may or may not be something that Steffen could fix?

 

Hmmm....

As with most anomolies this is probably more of a matter of workflow than anything else.

Still, it does beg a few question such as, "How does one reduce the variables between all rendering options. (answer: one does not)

 

I would be hard pressed to draw out a schematic of what the rendering options and branching opportunities are but at the core is the difference between (Render using this dialogue) and (Use Camera Settings). Where possible I have tried to use camera settings rather than A:M overwriting via render dialogue. This is somewhat problematic however because upon each new install or reset of A:M (I believe) A:M resets to 'This Dialogue'.

 

If we were to track the decision points one must take to repeat any given render (similar to your benchmarking oversight that made you wonder what might be wrong with your new computer) it might surprise us just how many variables would surface. It's great to have endless possibilities in rendering but sometime I yearn for the ultimate simplicity of one single solitary (perhaps even boring) result.

 

It seems that I need to pick one general workflow and stick with it. No?

 

Not that this is very insightful but attached are three images that represent (Shift Q) (Q) and Final Render (I think... I thought one was just a regular capture of the screen without any rendering other than what shows up in the Chor (that 'unrendered look' which I refer to as 'real time' is the look I generally prefer).

 

Unless I made a mistake I'd say that the Shift Q and Q renders look almost exactly the same but the final render picks up some additional (red) lighting or ambiance from somewhere.

I wouldn't waste time trying to resolve anything here as I tweaked too many settings while testing to make a decent test case out of this one.

I'd need to go back to a setup with considerably fewer variables.

 

Disclaimer: I have never understood the differences between the various render option in A:M so take that into consideration when trying to clue me in.

[NancyGormezano]

And as for the differences in real-time (progressive render) versus final rendered - post a screen capture of just 1 still versus the same rendered still...it may or may not be something that Steffen could fix?

 

I would be hard pressed to draw out a schematic of what the rendering options and branching opportunities are but at the core is the difference between (Render using this dialogue) and (Use Camera Settings). Where possible I have tried to use camera settings rather than A:M overwriting via render dialogue. This is somewhat problematic however because upon each new install or reset of A:M (I believe) A:M resets to 'This Dialogue'.

....

 

Unless I made a mistake I'd say that the Shift Q and Q renders look almost exactly the same but the final render picks up some additional (red) lighting or ambiance from somewhere.

 

First - I always set in the dialog Tools/options/rendering/ advanced/"use settings from the camera", EXCEPT when I've become brain dead (happening more and more frequently).

 

(following is based on memory - because I don't have all my files on this machine yet)

 

And yes all this gets reset when you install a new version of A:M, just as the tabs on ALL the tools/options get set to A:M default with fresh install. I suppose thats a good thing as it's a way to reset A:M after install. But it would be nice to be able to make a file that would save the users personal preference settings for all the tabs. And one could open this file after installing new version. (feature request?)

 

Assuming you have set "use camera settings" -

 

Quick render or Shift Q (or green button) is a progressive render (based on camera settings) I tend to use Final multipass ON in camera so at least 1 pass comes up quickly. Shift Q does NOT render all features - eg toon lines? This will keep rendering (progressively) as you change some settings (in model, chor, anywhere) to quickly see effect. Will not do post effects either (can't remember what else)

 

Q - or Render Mode (blue button) - will give a closer look to what Final Render will look like - not sure it does post effects either (especially ssao),but will do toon lines - but this will give closer look to what you can expect from REAL render. Will only change (go away) after you click something else.

 

The final proof is the FINAL render. But I have encountered bugs where my Shift Q render and Final render are not anywhere near the same and should be (elusive to track down, and really BUG - but I have a report in). It is rare.

 

I am concerned about your ambiance occlusion value - 200%? That might be the problem - unless you don't have Ambiance occlusion ON in camera? - if so, did you try setting it to 0?

 

Are you using SSAO? that might be the difference in the Q render and Final render?

[Rodney]

Yes, I was using SSAO... well... I was for that last toon rendering.

AO itself was never turned on/used (except in the Chor setting where IBL is set... but not the render panel... and not in the camera )

Added: There is ambiance all over this project... from the surfaces themselves to the material effector that is constrained to the camera) one of my initial tests with this setup was to light a scene with no lights in the scene... interesting stuff there for sure.

 

 

Here's an interesting rendering.

I tweaked the raw rendering with some HSE and Filmgrain in A:M Composite and colors suddenly turned into interesting lights in the distance and square buildings took on the look of vegetation (I'm talking about right at the initial intro).

filmgrain.mov