Author Topic: For All Audiophiles  (Read 1558 times)

2019-06-14, 19:09:20
Reply #15

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Seriously great renders! Could you share some info on that speckled foam surround material?

Are these renders also downsampled from higher res versions? The detail of the micro scratches in the copper dust cap is A+. I often find micro bump/fine scratch details like this often act very strangely depending on what resolution/zoom you're using with Corona.

thank you very much sir,

The foam material was actually the most challenging, recreating it was serious pain in the a**.
The foam itself has some amount of shiny glitter which is barely visible in dark environment but shines in direct lighting. I used extra metalic layer with clamped cellular map. It requires heavy tweaking and it's extremally light condition/angle dependent. Basically each shot needs some adjustments so there is no universal "recipe" for this I'm affraid.

TH

PS: yes the images are downsampled and yes, this type of microscratches is resolution dependent. Usually it requires higher resolutions (at least larger than 2K). Sometimes region render helps but not always.
« Last Edit: 2019-06-14, 19:28:12 by twoheads »

2019-06-17, 10:44:02
Reply #16

jrgby

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Lovely attention to detail, especially the twisted copper wire. Did you use path deform for those or some other method?

Thanks Man!

make basic spline  ---> create custom shape (star like) ---> loft  ---> get shape --->play with skin parameters (shape/path steps) ---> Deformations (twist) ---> adjust spline shape ---> end of tutorial

;)
Good tutorial, thanks!

I forgot that loft has those deformation parameters, usually try to avoid max compound objects but sometimes they do exactly what you need.

2019-06-17, 10:51:33
Reply #17

cjwidd

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
    • Artstation
These materials are exceptional - the scale of the microdetail is very well balanced - the brushed metal, in particular.

2019-06-17, 15:34:43
Reply #18

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile

Lovely attention to detail, especially the twisted copper wire. Did you use path deform for those or some other method?

Thanks Man!

make basic spline  ---> create custom shape (star like) ---> loft  ---> get shape --->play with skin parameters (shape/path steps) ---> Deformations (twist) ---> adjust spline shape ---> end of tutorial

;)
Good tutorial, thanks!

I forgot that loft has those deformation parameters, usually try to avoid max compound objects but sometimes they do exactly what you need.

you're welcome,

Yeah sometimes they do exactly what we want. In this case it's pretty straightforward and gives control over the model.




These materials are exceptional - the scale of the microdetail is very well balanced - the brushed metal, in particular.

thanks for kind words
« Last Edit: 2019-06-18, 13:56:41 by twoheads »

2019-06-18, 10:31:36
Reply #19

Romas Noreika

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
    • romasnoreika
really good work. just imagine if this was done with Fstorm, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was CGI or reality. what is it about Fstorm that makes light look so real I have no idea. (maybe Juraj could give his two cents about that) great work bro.

I think a scene like this deserves a making-of thread, the materials are almost perfect.

cheers +


I had a look at FStorm galleries...

In most cases one can immediately see that it´s CG.
Doesn't look more real that any average Corona render.

I would even say Corona looks more realistic...

Of course as always it depends on who is rendering. :)

I mean, just my general impression on FStorm. Nothing magical.

Fstorm is simply more sensitive to light than corona, so where you'd get almost no reflections, refractions or shadows in corona you'd get all of that in fstorm. Fstorm gives more subtle shadow variations and its got a proprietary implementation of GGX that makes the reflection appearance closer to reality. it also resolves noise differently so you get a better blur-sharpening results with better AA. the post there is way different and way superior to corona and it behaves like a camera as in contrast to a light sensor which is the implementation of corona.
Vray<Corona<Fstorm end of story.

don't get me wrong, I use corona 99% of the time, and I do have the recipe for photorealism but I occasionally use Fstorm and it's another world except that the usability there is inferior to corona's. look up their facebook page you might even love it.

and hey I have no interest in a fanboy duel here, I'm not one. I couldn't care less as long as the render engine delivers what it promises.

for example in this image although the materials have minimal imperfections and the glossiness in a lot of places is off, the light still looks great. and the tonemapping is bringing a lot of info in the highlights and reflections.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155265496044553&set=gm.1680069752289436&type=3&theater

this one too, the materials are substandard (the artist's mistake most likely) but the light is crazy
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154465714007616&set=pcb.1666841000278978&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARBSGxc9PodFF3Z2BPZJbBVDf1lJ1VocsgeAC1Tji5M-AAXFWZTVVHEK9dA7nAOTG_I95hApcOrh36xm



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214086953831048&set=pcb.1726499007646510&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARCeM_J3eG-ovZloijkZTauR38rC-kJxhS8-10zN06v4-2ZvvLRZZWjx1kVmkeqPEy3vg9qIYSuHK48f&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBy6eL2l4oMOEQJobrhD_9du8cEZqe3jEIlTl0dEbiDjAWLKUbNfk5y67QZ80nk8YSzuPKe4ocGV9RTJEkS7oB-ukCuL6n-UIHPuZEqx_X5VWPfP2jGUHiMUcOA_4czP_3xl-0L7TZ2HcHH8tyR4gLrR5tt-KWPe2le6AQETfQ0-5qzmNmSaXy8tKCYSYt3daMbIYLmA4pbrebUU4YyjdNwlrO6fuHUo7Ss7hVTi_4zQCaKBcRLL0Eoxop5akUTjE9YxwNnTxyPivGTDXeKEi7U9X-BgNHoBH6GhsdHU0C3RLoHYNl6HRxe12ZuGy6g6ss32ftZs5nxQRj-kiCwrkyLdfD8
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10216460408725937&set=gm.1828203324142744&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155220446742616&set=pcb.10155220447067616&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1616084698458962&set=gm.1731993893763688&type=3&eid=ARDTylkgMfKyEBn1XUyCUMjVvJjDK4Cg3beY9qplaeE9t0qu_gpDPsYUEk5vQ39kVxs4uXovLdUaKTXm&__tn__=EHH-R

Thank you. It does make sense now. Fstorm Lighting looks very very realistic.

2019-06-21, 21:27:33
Reply #20

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
really good work. just imagine if this was done with Fstorm, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was CGI or reality. what is it about Fstorm that makes light look so real I have no idea. (maybe Juraj could give his two cents about that) great work bro.

I think a scene like this deserves a making-of thread, the materials are almost perfect.

cheers +


I had a look at FStorm galleries...

In most cases one can immediately see that it´s CG.
Doesn't look more real that any average Corona render.

I would even say Corona looks more realistic...

Of course as always it depends on who is rendering. :)

I mean, just my general impression on FStorm. Nothing magical.

Fstorm is simply more sensitive to light than corona, so where you'd get almost no reflections, refractions or shadows in corona you'd get all of that in fstorm. Fstorm gives more subtle shadow variations and its got a proprietary implementation of GGX that makes the reflection appearance closer to reality. it also resolves noise differently so you get a better blur-sharpening results with better AA. the post there is way different and way superior to corona and it behaves like a camera as in contrast to a light sensor which is the implementation of corona.
Vray<Corona<Fstorm end of story.

don't get me wrong, I use corona 99% of the time, and I do have the recipe for photorealism but I occasionally use Fstorm and it's another world except that the usability there is inferior to corona's. look up their facebook page you might even love it.

and hey I have no interest in a fanboy duel here, I'm not one. I couldn't care less as long as the render engine delivers what it promises.

for example in this image although the materials have minimal imperfections and the glossiness in a lot of places is off, the light still looks great. and the tonemapping is bringing a lot of info in the highlights and reflections.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155265496044553&set=gm.1680069752289436&type=3&theater

this one too, the materials are substandard (the artist's mistake most likely) but the light is crazy
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154465714007616&set=pcb.1666841000278978&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARBSGxc9PodFF3Z2BPZJbBVDf1lJ1VocsgeAC1Tji5M-AAXFWZTVVHEK9dA7nAOTG_I95hApcOrh36xm



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214086953831048&set=pcb.1726499007646510&type=3&__tn__=HH-R&eid=ARCeM_J3eG-ovZloijkZTauR38rC-kJxhS8-10zN06v4-2ZvvLRZZWjx1kVmkeqPEy3vg9qIYSuHK48f&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBy6eL2l4oMOEQJobrhD_9du8cEZqe3jEIlTl0dEbiDjAWLKUbNfk5y67QZ80nk8YSzuPKe4ocGV9RTJEkS7oB-ukCuL6n-UIHPuZEqx_X5VWPfP2jGUHiMUcOA_4czP_3xl-0L7TZ2HcHH8tyR4gLrR5tt-KWPe2le6AQETfQ0-5qzmNmSaXy8tKCYSYt3daMbIYLmA4pbrebUU4YyjdNwlrO6fuHUo7Ss7hVTi_4zQCaKBcRLL0Eoxop5akUTjE9YxwNnTxyPivGTDXeKEi7U9X-BgNHoBH6GhsdHU0C3RLoHYNl6HRxe12ZuGy6g6ss32ftZs5nxQRj-kiCwrkyLdfD8
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10216460408725937&set=gm.1828203324142744&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155220446742616&set=pcb.10155220447067616&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1616084698458962&set=gm.1731993893763688&type=3&eid=ARDTylkgMfKyEBn1XUyCUMjVvJjDK4Cg3beY9qplaeE9t0qu_gpDPsYUEk5vQ39kVxs4uXovLdUaKTXm&__tn__=EHH-R


Hey Jviz,

thanks a lot for the detailed info about FStorm.
That sounds of course interesting.

No worries, I‘m not a fanboy of anything. Only of renders that look real and have atmosphere in them.


I guess, if I might get another PC with super strong GPU, Cuda or whatever FS needs, I might give it a try.

I remember having seen great renders with FS at this Swedish guy who formerly rendered for IKEA.
What’s his name again?

Jonas Lindquist as far as I remember...



Edit: now I had a look at the images from the web links. I guess everyone has a very different personal feel about what looks real.
For example the first image (interior of café) has a quite realistic overall look... yes.
But also quite many areas where it looks kind of "plastic-ish". And in many highlight areas, I cannot see the "lot of info in tone mapping ". In contrary... on the table in the foreground as well as the highlighted wall in the background,
surfaces have zero info and look completely dull and blown out. Material of the beer glasses looks very unrealistic (maybe the artist´s fault). Etc...

Of course it´s always the question how much the 3D-artist was responsible for these things.

But as mentioned before - I haven't seen a render engine yet, which would look 2x more realistic (than Corona) at first sight.

Generally: to my eyes many real photos look way more ugly than a really good render.

In renderings one of the main advantage is that you can create a great light situation which a photographer will never have.


Greetings.





« Last Edit: 2019-06-22, 12:00:05 by Designerman77 »