Post Your Renders - Happy New Year yall

13435373940100

Comments

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,983
    edited December 1969

    His grasses are primitives as well, not sure if that helps in overheads

  • FifthElementFifthElement Posts: 569
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Interior5.jpg
    1555 x 764 - 274K
  • FifthElementFifthElement Posts: 569
    edited December 1969

    Here is another one, lol, still frame from one of my animations :)

    ReflectingPool.jpg
    1280 x 690 - 354K
  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,615
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    One reason I tend to avoid conforming clothing if possible...

    The first thing I noticed when looking at the image of the girl against the wall was the hem of her dress, where it meets her left leg. There's a sharp transition, rather than the fabric stretching naturally across to her left thigh.

    I've always said that this image stuff is all about details, since most viewers have incredibly comprehensive and complex perceptions on what "looks right" when they see images. And for me that tiny detail stands out and detracts a bit from the image.

    You might want to try just running the conforming clothing thru the Carrara Bullet cloth sim to see if you can get a more natural drape.

    Or maybe just do a manual tweak of the hem in the modeller.

    Nice image, BTW.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,522
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Ouch! Both images are really nice! Very nice work.

    I've always said that this image stuff is all about details, since most viewers have incredibly comprehensive and complex perceptions on what "looks right" when they see images. And for me that tiny detail stands out and detracts a bit from the image.

    ...and many viewers may not even recognize what it is that they don't like... just that something's wrong. Agreed. I didn't get that from this image though. I actually did a double take and then clicked on it to enjoy it for a while. But we all see things differently too.

    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    Art_by_Olivia_04-27-15.jpg
    956 x 1270 - 2M
  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,615
    edited December 1969


    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    Wow, that's beautiful...I love the colors.

    I hope you didn't sit her down and give her a list of "awesome" plugins she can use to make it better... :) :) :)

  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Ouch! Both images are really nice! Very nice work.

    I've always said that this image stuff is all about details, since most viewers have incredibly comprehensive and complex perceptions on what "looks right" when they see images. And for me that tiny detail stands out and detracts a bit from the image.

    ...and many viewers may not even recognize what it is that they don't like... just that something's wrong. Agreed. I didn't get that from this image though. I actually did a double take and then clicked on it to enjoy it for a while. But we all see things differently too.

    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    let see what is she now 6 or 7 :roll:
    ;-)

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    It's called abstract. ;-)

    I saw a 60 Minutes program back in 90's talking about the modern art movement in New York and trying to define what is art, and why do these rich dowagers pay the ridiculous sums of money that they do for these pieces. One artist they covered sold a pile of hard candy, maybe 12" to 18" high to a rich, elderly woman in Manhattan for the price of $20,000. The reporter was amazed. She thought it was great and even offered him a candy from the pile. He asked if that would devalue the work, she said it was all right, because the artist had given her a bag of extra candy to replace pieces that were missing. It was literally a pile of freakin' candy in a corner on the floor- check that- on a mat on the floor.

    I think Dart's Grandmother's painting may not get a lot of money, but the artistic value seems to me to be more valuable and durable than a $20,000 pile of hard candy.

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,180
    edited December 1969

    Granddaughter EP :lol: though Granny could be enjoying her second childhood too.
    Is as sweet as one of Bighs groboto fractals too!

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    Granddaughter EP :lol: though Granny could be enjoying her second childhood too.
    Is as sweet as one of Bighs groboto fractals too!

    D'oh!

    Apologies bigh! :red:

    I guess I should have bought some reading glasses last time I had my eyes checked. Bifocals tend to cause me to miss the upper half of my screen.

    I think she must be pushing three or so by now?

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Here's a side-by-side. Sorry about the lighting, but we're still waiting for Rashad... ;)

    One of these is by a popular free render-only program, the other is by an unloved all-in-one

    DS_Bridge_b.jpg
    1300 x 1000 - 1021K
    Bridge-CA.jpg
    1300 x 1000 - 1M
  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,983
    edited December 1969

    It's called abstract. ;-)

    I saw a 60 Minutes program back in 90's talking about the modern art movement in New York and trying to define what is art, and why do these rich dowagers pay the ridiculous sums of money that they do for these pieces. One artist they covered sold a pile of hard candy, maybe 12" to 18" high to a rich, elderly woman in Manhattan for the price of $20,000. The reporter was amazed. She thought it was great and even offered him a candy from the pile. He asked if that would devalue the work, she said it was all right, because the artist had given her a bag of extra candy to replace pieces that were missing. It was literally a pile of freakin' candy in a corner on the floor- check that- on a mat on the floor.

    I think Dart's Grandmother's painting may not get a lot of money, but the artistic value seems to me to be more valuable and durable than a $20,000 pile of hard candy.

    20, 000 is pretty good I r eckon, better than the bit of rope in the corner I stood o n accidentally at the last Guggenheim show to come to oz (pile of candy in the corner was in that toooooo - along with a talking pile of rubbish ;)

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,983
    edited December 1969

    Here is another one, lol, still frame from one of my animations :)

    this is a wonderful image 5th Element
  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,983
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    Here's a side-by-side. Sorry about the lighting, but we're still waiting for Rashad... ;)

    One of these is by a popular free render-only program, the other is by an unloved all-in-one

    love em both, maybe too much bump in the top one

  • HeadwaxHeadwax Posts: 9,983
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Ouch! Both images are really nice! Very nice work.

    I've always said that this image stuff is all about details, since most viewers have incredibly comprehensive and complex perceptions on what "looks right" when they see images. And for me that tiny detail stands out and detracts a bit from the image.

    ...and many viewers may not even recognize what it is that they don't like... just that something's wrong. Agreed. I didn't get that from this image though. I actually did a double take and then clicked on it to enjoy it for a while. But we all see things differently too.

    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    and so you should be ;)
    so she takes after her grandad eh?

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969


    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    Gorgeous - better than some of mine, even now!

  • Bunyip02Bunyip02 Posts: 8,563
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Nice Silo work, shows what it can do.

    Regards, Bunyip

  • Bunyip02Bunyip02 Posts: 8,563
    edited December 1969

    Here is one of my interior renders ...

    Everything modeled in Silo 2.0 and some postwork done in Fusion :)

    Ouch! Both images are really nice! Very nice work.

    I've always said that this image stuff is all about details, since most viewers have incredibly comprehensive and complex perceptions on what "looks right" when they see images. And for me that tiny detail stands out and detracts a bit from the image.

    ...and many viewers may not even recognize what it is that they don't like... just that something's wrong. Agreed. I didn't get that from this image though. I actually did a double take and then clicked on it to enjoy it for a while. But we all see things differently too.

    This isn't a render, but I just have to share it. This is the first painting I've ever received from my lovely little Granddaughter. I'm so proud!

    Far better than some examples of modern art that I have seen.

  • Hermit CrabHermit Crab Posts: 841
    edited December 1969

    @ dartanbeck

    The subtle juxtaposition of the delicate tints of Alizarin Crimson and Vermillion against a light background of faint Prussian Blue is given greater emphasis towards one of the lower corners where the blue is treated with less restraint verging on an emphatic statement redolent of the eternal.

    $60,000 dollars - or priceless to grandfather.

  • Hermit CrabHermit Crab Posts: 841
    edited April 2015

    Post removed by me.

    I realized that my light-hearted joke (referring modern art) could be seen to be in very bad taste given current events in the news.

    Nothing of the sort was intended.

    Post edited by Hermit Crab on
  • Hermit CrabHermit Crab Posts: 841
    edited December 1969

    To all - just having a laugh. I love the picture by Dartanbeck's granddaughter!

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    head wax said:
    Tim_A said:
    Here's a side-by-side. Sorry about the lighting, but we're still waiting for Rashad... ;)

    One of these is by a popular free render-only program, the other is by an unloved all-in-one

    love em both, maybe too much bump in the top one
    I don't think it is to much bump. Maybe the AA settings could be better, but the bottom one looks overly soft in the bump department.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    Rashad asked about Ringo's Carrara optimized shader sets and how they differed from the Studio versions:
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/55519/P15/#810098

    I previously posted some examples of C8.5 and Genesis figures with their default shaders. They compare favorably, but I wasn't sure of the quality of the underlying image maps.

    I do have one Elite texture set that came with a Carrara version, and that was Reby Sky. So, here's Reby rendered side by side with the Reby Elite textures from the Content Browser (Poser .cr2) loaded onto the figure on the right, and Carrara native shaders on the figure on the left.

    I did nothing to either set of skin shaders, but I did adjust the Carrara Reby hair and clothing shaders.

    So, Carrara Reby is Green and Gold, and I chose the other colors for the Poser Reby, because they remind me of colors that should be used to losing to Green and Gold. ;-P

    So, kidding aside, you can see the specular plastic effect on the face, but for some reason not on the rest of the body, but there is that slight bluish tint from the added color modifier in the color channel, although it is not as bad as some. It also isn't applied to face I noticed.

    First image is the raw render, with only the conversion to .jpg for the forum.

    Second image uses my layer passes for postwork.

    Poser_Reby_Vs_Carrara_Reby-post.jpg
    2000 x 1960 - 1M
    Poser_Reby_Vs_Carrara_Reby-no-post.jpg
    2000 x 1960 - 1M
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,799
    edited December 1969

    Rashad asked about Ringo's Carrara optimized shader sets and how they differed from the Studio versions:
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/55519/P15/#810098

    I previously posted some examples of C8.5 and Genesis figures with their default shaders. They compare favorably, but I wasn't sure of the quality of the underlying image maps.

    I do have one Elite texture set that came with a Carrara version, and that was Reby Sky. So, here's Reby rendered side by side with the Reby Elite textures from the Content Browser (Poser .cr2) loaded onto the figure on the right, and Carrara native shaders on the figure on the left.

    I did nothing to either set of skin shaders, but I did adjust the Carrara Reby hair and clothing shaders.

    So, Carrara Reby is Green and Gold, and I chose the other colors for the Poser Reby, because they remind me of colors that should be used to losing to Green and Gold. ;-P

    So, kidding aside, you can see the specular plastic effect on the face, but for some reason not on the rest of the body, but there is that slight bluish tint from the added color modifier in the color channel, although it is not as bad as some. It also isn't applied to face I noticed.

    First image is the raw render, with only the conversion to .jpg for the forum.

    Second image uses my layer passes for postwork.

    Wow. Huge difference. Thanks for this side by side.

  • FifthElementFifthElement Posts: 569
    edited December 1969

    Thanks all for the feedback, it is appreciated :)

    Here is another one ...

    CubesFinal.jpg
    1458 x 759 - 260K
  • JonstarkJonstark Posts: 2,738
    edited December 1969

    5th element, I really like your style; it's very distinctive and visually catchy. Nice renders, all of them.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    Okay, I promised bluebells... here's bluebells!

    One thing this has taught me: I need more granularity in my replicator zones!

    A second thing: It would be so much better if Carrara rendered from the bottom up. Then it wouldn't be 2 and a half hours into a 3 hour render that I discover one of my ground cover replicators was turned off! >:(

    BluebellWoods1.jpg
    1600 x 1000 - 2M
  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,180
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    Okay, I promised bluebells... here's bluebells!

    One thing this has taught me: I need more granularity in my replicator zones!

    A second thing: It would be so much better if Carrara rendered from the bottom up. Then it wouldn't be 2 and a half hours into a 3 hour render that I discover one of my ground cover replicators was turned off! >:(


    you could turn your camera upsidedown
  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    Okay, I promised bluebells... here's bluebells!

    One thing this has taught me: I need more granularity in my replicator zones!

    A second thing: It would be so much better if Carrara rendered from the bottom up. Then it wouldn't be 2 and a half hours into a 3 hour render that I discover one of my ground cover replicators was turned off! >:(


    you could turn your camera upsidedown

    Brilliant!

    Sad part is, I will have to write this down on a sticky note and attach to my monitor or I won't remember.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    That's great lateral thinking, Wendy! :coolsmile:

    Here's another one. We're looking at about 40,000 bluebells in that patch. I had to double, no, triple up the replicator to get the density (the ground object is big enough that 100,000 instances doesn't get you very dense coverage at that scale!)

    BluebellWoods2.jpg
    1600 x 1000 - 2M
This discussion has been closed.