[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: daisycompare2~01.jpg (72 KB, 757x788)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
Aside from the model itself, what are the technical differences in terms of lighting, shading, all that stuff, between these two renders?
>>
more uniform shading. The first one has a really harsh gradient from dark to light shades.

A back light is present

Less intense speculars

Its hard to tell but there might be some indirect lighting going on in the second one
>>
>>592760
The shader itself has changed, too. That older render is barebones blinn-phong while the later one's got some oren-nayar microfacet shit going.
>>
>>592752

Need to do something about your AO maps in your first render.
>>
>>592765
How can someone be this stupid?
>>
>>592765
Oh no it's retarded.
>>
>>592765
Please be bait, but this is not the first time I see some lazy faggot not even bothering to read a post before replying to it with a nonsense.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.