[IMG]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2914/bearingdof2shopped.jpg[/IMG]
My bearing rendered with a 300mm lens.
[QUOTE=nVidia;27480478][img_thumb]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2914/bearingdof2shopped.jpg[/img_thumb]
My bearing rendered with a 300mm lens.[/QUOTE]
dont like the noise :/
[QUOTE=Lazore;27480606]dont like the noise :/[/QUOTE]
I gotta get a better camera then.
But really when you have a 300mm lens it eats away a lot of the light because it has such a low fov so you have to use a pretty high ISO. Or lower shutter speed which increases motion blur.
Yeah the noise looks a little extreme, and the plane of focus is very small.
It's like you've piled on the effects a bit too much.
you made that bearing ages ago
[QUOTE=Barnhouse;27481381]Yeah the noise looks a little extreme, and the plane of focus is very small.
It's like you've piled on the effects a bit too much.[/QUOTE]
The plane of focus is very small, have you ever photographed with a 300mm lens?
[QUOTE=nVidia;27481608]The plane of focus is very small, have you ever photographed with a 300mm lens?[/QUOTE]
Can't say I have. fair enough.
For something that small it would have to be a 300mm macro lens, in which case I think the DoF is perfectly acceptable.
[QUOTE=Tracker;27481876]For something that small it would have to be a 300mm macro lens, in which case I think the DoF is perfectly acceptable.[/QUOTE]
I've got a 300mm macro lens myself, and can confirm the shallow depth of field.
Also, combining the lens with an extension tube severely increase the blur, and can be quite fun.
nVidia, would you mind posting the texture map for that bearing?
I think it was all procedural. It looks very realistic by the way, nvidia.
[QUOTE=Jeggis;27485277]I've got a 300mm macro lens myself, and can confirm the shallow depth of field.
Also, combining the lens with an extension tube severely increase the blur, and can be quite fun.
nVidia, would you mind posting the texture map for that bearing?[/QUOTE]
It has four 2k bitmaps and vraydirt to blend them nicely. :3:
Yeah, Nvidia. you make Amazing metal textures.
[QUOTE=wingless;27496167]Yeah, Nvidia. you make Amazing metal textures.[/QUOTE]
Shaders to be more precise but thanks. :love:
Is there a difference between a shader and a material?
[QUOTE=johan_sm;27496305]Is there a difference between a shader and a material?[/QUOTE]
A shader is an algorithm describing how a color, a bitmap, or other properties are supposed to be shown in a render. An example is the Phong shader, developed by Bui Tuong Phong in 1973. A material is a container for several shaders, like the standard material in Max.
So the hierarchy goes like this: Material->Shader->Texture
But nowadays both "shader" and "materials" are terms used to describe the same concept, most often as a material.
EDIT:
I rigged, skinned and animated my shark today:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb8tapKYhdQ&hd=2[/media]
I still need to improve:
-Map seams
-Inside of mouth
-Gills
-Eyes
-Color
-Glossiness
-Render quality
Anything else you guys might think of?
EDIT:
Oh, and I'm aware that a shark can't move is body like that. The animation is merely meant to show the quality of the skinning. ;)
Muscle around the jaw can help a lot.
[QUOTE=Jeggis;27499870]A shader is an algorithm describing how a color, a bitmap, or other properties are supposed to be shown in a render. An example is the Phong shader, developed by Bui Tuong Phong in 1973. A material is a container for several shaders, like the standard material in Max.
So the hierarchy goes like this: Material->Shader->Texture
But nowadays both "shader" and "materials" are terms used to describe the same concept, most often as a material.
EDIT:
I rigged, skinned and animated my shark today:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb8tapKYhdQ&hd=2[/media]
I still need to improve:
-Map seams
-Inside of mouth
-Gills
-Eyes
-Color
-Glossiness
-Render quality
Anything else you guys might think of?
EDIT:
Oh, and I'm aware that a shark can't move is body like that. The animation is merely meant to show the quality of the skinning. ;)[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of crysis. *shivers*
[QUOTE=Jeggis;27499870]A shader is an algorithm describing how a color, a bitmap, or other properties are supposed to be shown in a render. An example is the Phong shader, developed by Bui Tuong Phong in 1973. A material is a container for several shaders, like the standard material in Max.
So the hierarchy goes like this: Material->Shader->Texture
But nowadays both "shader" and "materials" are terms used to describe the same concept, most often as a material.
EDIT:
I rigged, skinned and animated my shark today:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb8tapKYhdQ&hd=2[/media]
I still need to improve:
-Map seams
-Inside of mouth
-Gills
-Eyes
-Color
-Glossiness
-Render quality
Anything else you guys might think of?
EDIT:
Oh, and I'm aware that a shark can't move is body like that. The animation is merely meant to show the quality of the skinning. ;)[/QUOTE]
Nice skining, but IMHO depending what purpose your using the shark for, I'd keep the insde of the mouth black (but it's prolly just me :/ ). Also a random red thing (artifact?) comes up when the shark opens/closes its mouth
[quote]Muscle around the jaw can help a lot.[/quote]
I thought I'd might check out Lumonix's SkinFX plugin for Max. Maybe I'll apply it to this one in the future.
[quote] Reminds me of crysis. *shivers*[/quote]
Hah, you're right! Oh, how I need to combine the finished shark with realflow and John William's "Jaws"!!
[quote]Nice skining, but IMHO depending what purpose your using the shark for, I'd keep the insde of the mouth black (but it's prolly just me :/ ). Also a random red thing (artifact?) comes up when the shark opens/closes its mouth[/quote]
The real shark has a bright and shallow mouth with lots (!) of teeth and blood. But I might keep the black to give it a more frightening look. Also, the red glitch is probably caused by the low GI-sampling combined with the bright red gums around its teeth.
I'll contribute with today's work..
The mesh isn't perfect, but it's supposed to look like a black widdow.
I made the model 'cause I'm gonna animate it tomorrow by using inverse kinematics, I'm also gonna unwrap it and add a shader to it tomorrow :)
Right now I just applied a quick Raytrace reflection.
[img_thumb]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g316/dominoegnallange/Blackwidow.png[/img_thumb]
how 2 use kematicals?
Cuz I don't want to have to manually try to keep feet in one spot.
[QUOTE=Saxor16;27504342]how 2 use kematicals?
Cuz I don't want to have to manually try to keep feet in one spot.[/QUOTE]
you backward link stuff you want to be connected
But before you link anything, you want to go to the hierarchy tab, scroll down untill you find a reset section, reset "transform" and "scale", othervise the animation might get fucked up with your models scewing or something.
Then proceed with the following example.
The legs of the black widdow got 9 visable links, and one dummy (you'll find the dummy under "helpers")
The dummy is placed near the tip of the foot, after you've placed the dummy at the tip of the foot, you then want to link everything in this precise order: from the body and out:
I'll first link the second link to the first link (that sounded weird), then the third link to the second link, fourth to third, so on, untill all limbs are linked together.
You also want to link the dummy to the ninth link.. Remember to do it in that precise order.
Then link the first link of the foot, to the body of the spider (or whatever you're making feet to).
Proceed then to select the first link of your creature's foot, and click on the "animation" tab on the upper part of the screen, Then comes the part I don't remember..
There's supposed to be someting with "IK" near the top.. in here you'll find "ik solvers" if I'm not mistaken..
click this, and then click your dummy.
You should be able to move your foot wherever you want, and the body should stay still, and the other way around.
Sounds simple enough, thanks!
[IMG]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/ajackss/fancy_pants.jpg?t=1295404774[/IMG]
I was tired of my lightless work renders so I did a little vray render and figured it was worth showing. Half of the city is laid out. every building has a fully furnished interior, it doesn't look much different but it was quite the undertaking. This is the end of the line of this product line, after this if I do another arab city it'll be fresh. I might add vehicles to this series though for a longer life.
Can't blame me though, no point shooting your prize cash cow in the head after the first milking ;)
[QUOTE=Ajacks;27512656][img_thumb]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/ajackss/fancy_pants.jpg?t=1295404774[/img_thumb]
I was tired of my lightless work renders so I did a little vray render and figured it was worth showing. Half of the city is laid out. every building has a fully furnished interior, it doesn't look much different but it was quite the undertaking. This is the end of the line of this product line, after this if I do another arab city it'll be fresh. I might add vehicles to this series though for a longer life.
Can't blame me though, no point shooting your prize cash cow in the head after the first milking ;)[/QUOTE]
How long have you been using Max?
These renders make me want to jump off a bridge.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;27512656][img_thumb]http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/ajackss/fancy_pants.jpg?t=1295404774[/img_thumb]
I was tired of my lightless work renders so I did a little vray render and figured it was worth showing. Half of the city is laid out. every building has a fully furnished interior, it doesn't look much different but it was quite the undertaking. This is the end of the line of this product line, after this if I do another arab city it'll be fresh. I might add vehicles to this series though for a longer life.
Can't blame me though, no point shooting your prize cash cow in the head after the first milking ;)[/QUOTE]
Your arab city renders always look so washed out and bland in color for some reasons.
[QUOTE=edja007;27512922]Your arab city renders always look so washed out and bland in color for some reasons.[/QUOTE]
There's not much color in your average war-torn arab city.
Yea, I'd say that render has more colour than an actual photo of something similar. There are very distinct blues and reds, with somewhat ambigious greens, primary colours etc. With the kind of lighting and sandy atmosphere, it's hard to find something that hasn't been filtered yellow in a photo.
I don't actually think there is that much special about Ajacks' renders, it's just the amount of detail in the models and textures that makes the difference in my opinion.
I think for best renders in this thread, we'd have to look at some of Hayate's work, whereas best models I think is more Ajacks' area.
I don't take to much pride in my renders as they are just a means to show the product. I never venture away from just the absolute standard vray sky/sun setup since it gets the job done. You'll see in my ongoing NYC project that my renders will be stepped up quite a bit and I'm already experimenting with some nice setups.
Also in response to it being washed out, there only reason I could see that being the case is the limited color pallet used buildings and the fact that sand is pretty damned invasive.
They're right. The greens of the trees and the reds are very undersaturated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.