HOME | DD
lyc β kryptonite shards
Published: 2007-12-27 03:17:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 8437; Favourites: 56; Downloads: 347
Redirect to original
Description
rendered with alluraRelated content
Comments: 47
hey would it be okay if i use this image as a background of a page in my yearbook class??
π: 0 β©: 0
This is stellar!! I love the details! Watch out Superman!
π: 0 β©: 0
my monte carlo global illumination renderer, similar to indigo/maxwell/fryrender/etc
π: 0 β©: 1
BTW. Evermotion have new renderer -> [link]
And my audio software will be updated ! [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
i've heard of it of course, and have you read this: [link]
"Speed is rather mediocre, (for example indigo renderer seems to be 2x - 3x faster) but most importantly, i cannot understand one thing. I saw a tutorial about Nox - 3ds Max workflow, and there was a hint "Global illumination usually renders too dim, so we have to correct it". I cannot understand how this is possible. If its supposed to be unbiased renderer (with some simplifications, as you stated) then there should not be such a thing as "too dim GI". There should only one GI intensity, the correct one."
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't have any idea about that.
Btw. For me, every renderer should have ability to render in 3 modes.
1.Realistic
2.Fast - mostly for animations
3.Beauty - in this mode is all about getting nice looking image without thinking that "this glass shouldn't cast that glowy rays of rainbow".
Fake lights, brighter shadows and glossy surfaces... everything have is own purpose and fake sometimes is even better than original.
For example in games... portal 2. Old game engine, prebaked shadow maps and glossy surfaces. But it looks so real and nice.
Look in to all Unreal engine based games, most of them are with extreme bloom fx and processes shader on camera, remove that and game will like like crap.
The best way is to give an ability to chose and slide between those 3 modes.
Forcing full ray casted shadows on something that is far a way is a waste of time.
Maybe theirs strategy is to create Beauty renderer, instead of photo realistic.
We already have Vray, Maxwell and Indigo... market is full.
π: 0 β©: 0
the focus effect really adds to this, loving the green hues too
π: 0 β©: 1
maybe a bit of (real) chromatic abberation would be good?
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, eye-catching scene. Do you work as a 3d rendering software developer or something like that? Cool, I think there's not many people who can both experience fractal & 3d rendering in advanced level like personally buiild own render engine and just do all of them in free time. Keep it up, man!
π: 0 β©: 1
something like that 
i'm glad you can appreciate it, most people don't look twice since they expect i use apophysis or 3dsmax, and because it's not really up to the level usually achieved through the use of those programs by talented artists... so, thank you also!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I get it 
And about quality & the way you did them, it's different than level of (separate program: fractal tool, 3d tool)experienced users. But I still like your works a lot for some reason, especially that you technically made out almost your images and advanced knowing about internal behavior of render engine, etc...
And when a developer made a image for their work, I think should to look at it with different view than seeing a artist do their job. It's my personal thought 
π: 0 β©: 1
on the other hand, if i really want to grow as an artist there should be no special consideration, or handicap, given simply because i chose a different way; the end result should still have free-standing appeal without other context.
well, i do appreciate your taking the time to look around and express well-worded and explained opinions 
π: 0 β©: 1
Not really get what you said, especially last part. Sorry, English isn't my native language indeed.
Maybe I said something wrong?... or misunderstood something I thought that I got correctly?... not sure at all
BTW, is your avatar kinda fractal?
π: 0 β©: 1
sorry, i should have written more clearly :S basically i just want to be judged like everyone else, no special consideration. that way i can hopefully become a real artist
about the avatar, it is made with iteration but not many because of the small size. so yes and no
cheers!
π: 0 β©: 0
Very nice work (and my new background image
π: 0 β©: 1
awesome, always nice to hear when a pic of mine gets wallpapered
depth of field is horribly overused everywhere (including here), but damn it's so much fun to play with... soon i want to add real bokeh due to different lens shapes, proper camera spectral response curves and calibrate the output to a real camera. the author of indigo renderer should be visiting me tomorrow, on an unrelated note
π: 0 β©: 0
most realistic bokeh patterns i've ever seen.
They've got that slighlty distorted/natural look, or it might be the grain whos just messing with my brain's visual perception
π: 0 β©: 1
interesting that you mention bokeh, i was just reading about it recently and realised that a perfectly circular aperture is pretty boring, something like a pentagonal lens looks way better!
and yes, good grain does a lot for an image, and here i've left it very "coarse" instead of letting it finely disappear... it's funny because in my field of rendering (monte carlo image synthesis), the central goal is to remove the noise/grain!
π: 0 β©: 0
As I look at your renderings I struggle to analyze what I see. I try to recreate the algorithms in my head that you may have used to create these images. The thesis you linked on Robust Monte Carlo Methods has helped my understanding tremendously. I am no where near finished reading it, nor do I understand it entirely. I am starting to grasp the concept of solving a scene by using the Monte Carlo method. Mush like an integral can be solved; with more iteration the percent error is reduced without having to solve the entire scene.
That aside, I am intrigued by your use of focus. In your calculations, do you take into account the properties of the lenses used in the camera? That is, are you treating the light as if it passes through a curved medium, such as glass, at various incidence angles? If so, do you also account for the light loosed due to reflection at the lenses surface?
I know Iβve asked a lot. Iβm sorry if itβs a bother, but I am truly trying to understand how to render an image like this with out using the DirectX or OpenGL fallbacks.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah i do simulate a sort of idealised (thin lens) camera, which has a circular aperture causing the depth of field blurring and blooming (very bright lights some distance away bloom into beautiful circles).
about learning to do this stuff, you need to start with the basic monte carlo theory. you can easily teach yourself, and once you have applying it to really nasty and complex integrals is relatively simple; as a first exercise, implement the algorithm proposed by paul bourke to approximate the area of intersecting circles described here: [link]
after that, do some measurements: compute a super accurate area (a reference value), then see how the error decreases as a function of the number of samples you took. now that you have that error measuring in place, implement stratified/jittered sampling, and see how its error graph works. once you've got these methods down pat, i'll show you the most powerful method of all (importance sampling), and then we can get you started on a 2d ray tracer - that's a lot of fun and will teach you basically everything.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is exactly what I needed. A starting point! Thanks so much for a nudge in the right direction. I'll start with the algorithm by Bourke. I donβt know how long it will take, I havenβt read it yet. I'm just excited about actually having something tangible to work on.
Thanks again!!
π: 0 β©: 1
no problem, both that article by bourke (read his whole website) and writing a 2d tracer are extremely low hanging fruit.
who knows, one day i may also induct you to my Church of Monte Carlo Methodists
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice green metal
How many polys can it handle, yet?
π: 0 β©: 1
infinitely many, if you think about curved surfaces
π: 0 β©: 2
I wrote "od" but I meant "of" - a typo correction post^^
π: 0 β©: 0
lol
so, these pics aren't made of polys but od curves? Berzier Surfaces?
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, I read it in your other answer^^
π: 0 β©: 0
aex is just unhappy about his tofu-fractal 
π: 0 β©: 0
this is your most photorealistic one so far
congratulations, just more samples and a higher heightmap res, thumbnail is perfect!
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks, though i did stop it after an hour simply because i liked the grain...
π: 0 β©: 1
np
indeed i love the grain, too; but then there are those real photographs, which mostly don't have that 'feature'
π: 0 β©: 2
looking at that image, there's that curvature. did you apply your height-func/map onto the sphere?
π: 0 β©: 1
for those i render 3 hours instead of 1
π: 0 β©: 1
so may it be 3hrs
but as i know you, you already have something other awesome piece in pipeline
π: 0 β©: 1
nah, right now i'm refactoring my code in a big way, back-porting all the improvements i made in the 2d renderer and trying to make a real system out of it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I know what you should do. You should show a collage of all these heightmaps with The Ice Dance by Danny Elfman from Edward Scissorhands playing in the background.
π: 0 β©: 1