?this is what I reached so far..
please end his suffering
>>569802Still looks pretty good; you have full color and ray traced shadows + self shadows in your scene, things you probably wouldn't even be able to reasonably do way back when.
>>569813Thought it'd be fun to try my hand at it.What do you think of this?Show me your worst renders, /3/.
>>569819Now without raycasts, because muh purity.
I'd actually love to see guides on how to achieve that early-3D look. It's one of my favorite aesthetics.
>>569821For mine (Using blender) I turned off AA, raycasting, turn on indirect lighting using only 1 sample, applied a blur/grain filter over the render, and saved the image with 38% JPG quality.Here's what it looks like with more default-ish settings.
>renderingJust rip that shit right from the viewport
I guess this thread is as good as any, any tips on achieving something similar to the background here?
>>569846cycles is pretty good at shitting up interior scene with noise. maybe try 300 samples with point lights and get the same effects. reduce bounces to 2 and use diffuse only materials.they somehow made it look good with such bad quality
how about now?
I found this thing on the internet...it is high quality and low quality in the same time
>>569879>>569882>>569891OP, that isn't bad render quality, it's more of just bad in general.>>569848This is awful advice, you're going to give him fireflies, which is completely different.>>569846Noise doesn't seem to be the key here. It looks like shadows were limited to only certain objects, and the proportions of stuff is way off.To me it looks like inconsistent quality of objects while remaining close enough gets that shitty look.
>>569821For that you should probably have a look back at what was available at the time, stuff like ReBoot was done on SGI workstations with Softimage 3D and rendered with mental ray, so try and limit yourself to those constraints. A lot of early 3D was also done with NURBS to give things that overly smooth look.>>569846>>569848Early CG was actually very clean, because monte-carlo path tracing didn't exist yet in a form that was usable for long-form TV production, everything was ray-traced. Cycles is a path-tracer, so at best you can only attempt a crude imitation. In fact, almost every feature we have now that may produce noise in an image didn't exist circa 1990~2000 in production environments.If you see noise in early CG, especially in video games, it's a result of excessive image compression. The jpeg format didn't publicly launch until 1996, and it might have taken a while after to catch on, so before that you didn't have wavelet-based compression algorithms, only direct data reduction like reduced bit depth, color pallets and dithering.
>>569899thanks for telling me!
>>569802>how to achieve shitty 3Djust use Blender like all the fags here
>>569899firelies only happen with glossy materials. not diffuse>>569902this is not an internal render. i can easily tell because of how the shadow are
I used this piece of dutch thingand guess what? the result wasabsolute cringe
>>569921actually i take that back. that's not a path tracer because there is no shadow information from things like the kitchen window and the door.it does have striking similarity to low sample renders
>>569921>only happen with glossy not diffuseRight. Missed that part of your post.Regardless I think >>569902 nailed it on the head.
>>569922>cringeok yeah kid
u have to write ur own shaderreduce float pricision by rounding to get ps1 look