[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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Image 01.png (2.91 MB, 1920x1080)
2.91 MB
2.91 MB PNG
I want to achieve photorealism in my renders but I think I´m still on the uncanny valley. How do I take that extra step?

Image related.
>>
>>626747

>uncanny valley

How about shit valley.
>>
File: sdfsdf.png (595 KB, 571x572)
595 KB
595 KB PNG
>>626747
Nothing has a bump map.

The tree is just stuck on a flat grass surface. Grass doesnt look like a low pile green rug, make blades and set up a simple particle system. Cover up your background. This building is like in the middle of a several acre empty lot outside of a city-- it's creepy. Use a better hdr if that even is an hdr. It looks like you dont care about detail enough. Look outside and at the ground, there are cracks, stains, random twigs and leaves on the ground. Even when making an idealistic world, these natural objects always add up to making a realistic photo. The architecture itself is really strange, what the fuck is this place? I can't tell from the context. A waiting room? Two people are on computers in a room with only chairs? The foundation of the entire building is held up by little blue squares? It's scary
>>
>>626751
Go fuck yourself
>>
>>626751
I mean thanks
>>
Brazilians are incapable of realism.

Dont get me wrong, it can look polished from a thumbnail, but on full size it is indeed a polished turd

Your genetics limit you, have a good life.
>>
>>626782
That's Spanish, you uncultured swine.

Com tudo o que voçê mereçe. <- Portuguese
Con todo lo que te mereces <- Spanish (possible, Spain's variant)
With everything you deserve <- Amerimutt's Vulgar Tongue
>>
>>626791
*possibly
>>
>>626791
Same shit huehue
>>
>>626747
you good no taste, no trained eyes, lack of fundamentals and you are lazy on top of that.
The extra step is impossible for you because you lack the taste, eyes, fundamentals and drive to get there.
>>
>>626835
>Lack of taste
Explain.
>>
>>626836
Time to visit /ic/ ;D
>>
>>626751
I think it's a Mersedez-Bens dealer
>>
>>626748
that's exactly what I wanted to comment!
people like OP are fucking autistic when it comes to using the term "uncanny valley"

>>626747
modeling is cheap, textures are bad, lighting is bad, comp is terrible.. in 2-3 years you might be at a decent level if you're really dedicated
>>
>>626782
if you just spend 5min on artstation you'll see that many brazilians are really fucking good
>>
>>626751
Not OP, but I would be thankful for this kind of criticism.
I know exactly 0 about 3D in general, and can still see the image is lazy/poor.
>>
everything is too cleany and shiny, the lighting is too perfected like it's a display model underneath a light. there's no context to what the people inside are doing, they don't look real people in a still photo. all of the terrain outside is flat, it looks like the Sims
>>
That poor man on the left is about to tip over and fall through that plate of glass :(
>>
>>626979
For example, your mother's.
>>
>>626747
Use area lights and GI
>>
>>626989
im far from being brazilian m8
but nice try, keks for effort
>>
Colsubsidio workers in 4chan, everything makes sense now.

Que puta bida :v .
>>
You need a better renderer. Or if you're using anything modern and acceptable (like vray, redshift, arnold, or hell even cycles), you need to rethink your life, delete all of your lighting, and start over from the basics with a simple, proven setup. If your renderer is current, you can find some very satisfactory tutorials (both paid or free) on how to set up some basic lighting that's physically accurate and non-fucked.

Lighting is your main issue. You can have lazy textures, oversimplified models, but as long as you have decent lighting your offline renders will look good. Conversely, fixing all of your other issues will do no good if you stick with lighting that would look passable in a game from 10 years ago.
>>
>>627035
i totally agree with your point (lighting being very important!), but then again if you look at the overall quality of the image, it's fairly certain the the problem is OP's considerable lack of skills
>>
>>627103
And I've tried to give him an avenue to explore to get the easiest returns on improving his art. Your point?

"Yeah OP did bad render huh" congratulations on stating the obvious.
>>
>>626840
Not an answer.
>>
>>626751
This cracked me up. Subtly brutal.
Here's a free (you).
>>
>>627140
Brutal but also really helpful. I wonder if OP will take it on board and give us a better render.
>>
>>626747
Because your subject seems vaguely architectural,
I'm going to say that the workflow depends less on achieving photorealism straight out of render and more in post.
Sometimes materials aren't even assigned to geometry in whatever modeling software you're using - if you're using Vray, for example, you can use MaterialID to quickly photoshop textures onto surfaces.
>>
don't go for photorealism in a building project, your client only will feel gimped out in the end. Sell them an artpiece that exudes atmosphere, not this plastic shit you made.
>>
>>627590
>archviz is abstract art
???
sure, you can throw in all your fancy post-processing effects for the wow factor, but at the end of the day you're just presenting a proof of concept for a possibly real building
>>
>>627593
>but muh holographic panels on the walls
>>
>>626747
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AT7H4GGrA
>>
>>627609
Oh, God, no more of this.
>>
>>627609
Andrew, please shilling your donuts elsewhere.
>>
File: 1408734841743.jpg (33 KB, 350x401)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>627609
Friendly reminder that this video get's it wrong on why dynamic range is useful and basically solves shitty color management with more shitty color management. The "filmic" preset doesn't relate to anything physically plausible that exists in real life; it's basically a cheat on top of wrong color theory.

It's a crutch for Blender's poor lighting/GI calculations, lack of correct gamma in its default color space, and proper exposure calibration.

If you feel like debating this, just.. just don't. Do some research on proper rendering techniques (with professional renderers), linear workflow, and photography instead.
>>
>>627648
>this video get's it wrong on why dynamic range is useful
Care to elaborate?

>shitty color management
Yeah, no argument there, Blender's color management is pretty much absent.

>The "filmic" preset doesn't relate to anything physically plausible that exists in real life
Well, Filmic is an OCIO look. Just a way of interpreting, in sRGB space, values stored in linear space, dealing in an acceptable manner with the difference in dynamic range. It's a preview, and certainly not intended for a final grade of the image.

>It's a crutch for Blender's poor lighting/GI calculations
When I use Blender, I work in linear space and render with Octane. Conversion to non-linear happens at the end of the pipeline, in specialized grading software. So I'm safe, despite using Blender in the first place.
>>
>>627648
this
>>
Stop using Twinmotion and use vray like a normal person.

For the price of TM you can get vray, anima (for people), the entire adobe suite and subscriptions at poliigon, quixel and substance. You should already have 3ds max.
>>
>>627732
Agree 2018 is objectively shit and actually a downgrade in many ways from 2017, with basic content missing.

However you can't compare TM and VRay. The whole point of lumion and TM is for real time viewing for clients which is fast to set up, which is important for constantly changing.

Clients love being able to fly around their own models, which previously has never been so easy to set up.

Now however, TM 2018 has gotten so shit you are better off straight importing to unreal or unity yourself and just hiring one guy who knows the workflow and can quickly turn it into a simple VR experience.
That's the future for archvis.

I am just really pissed at TM. They had such a promising future in 2016 with the ability to drag and drop in full Revit/skp/cad/rhino models and quickly set up materials for huge urban areas, then export out an executable in under 45 mins total that a client can open on even 5 year old laptops to fly around themself. Even our biggest urban developments came in under 1gig for the bimmotion files.

Now they fucked up by requiring each standalone export to be as a minimum about 5gigs due to all the unreal engine 4 fluff.

All the needed to do was integrate PBR materials better and keep going their own direction.

Fucking french idiots.
>>
>>627648
i totally agree on this
i use blender regularly and the whole light/shadow capabilities are fucked (in cycles) this is why i don't use cycles much to begin with.
i guess this is why they developed EVEE in the first place, its because offline rendering is super fucked right now so its best we do most of the work in realtime.
most of the interior designers that work in blender already switched to corona standalone, i see it everyday
>>
>>627739
also another thing to note, the default setup for cycles is super shit. there is no way you can just hit "render" and get a good result. and the default setup is not good for any situation either way
>>
>>627739
im honestly surprised that a blender user actually agrees with my point considering the huge bias toward the software on this board, so thank you

>most of the interior designers that work in blender already switched to corona standalone, i see it everyday
corona is d e f i n i t i v e l y a better option than cycles, good to know they implemented it
>>
>>627778
>corona is d e f i n i t i v e l y a better option than cycles
Most renderers are a better option than cycles.
Arnold, Renderman, Vray, Corona, Redshift, Octane.
Everything else is esoteric quackery.
>>
File: 436543546574.jpg (104 KB, 405x405)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>627782
>Everything else is esoteric quackery
fucking kek
>>
>>627737
It depends on projects a lot imo.

We moved from TM2017 to UE4 because we do very large projects and needed to be able to optimize them like a game to maintain decent fps. But in the end, even that wasn't enough and also realtime just requires too many additional steps to work/look good, so unless you actually need realtime presentations, I'd say offline rendering is still the way to go because it looks better with a lot less work.

As for TM, idk how 18 behaves but 17 had pretty long render times with large scenes. UE4 is a lot better in that regard - capturing a 3 minute cinematic in HD takes less than an hour, even if the PC is running the scene at 1fps (i7 4.2ghz, 1080ti). UEs lighting is shit tho. Doing lightmaps takes way too much time and every other engine now features some sort of dynamic GI or voxel GI solution. We just tried Unigine for a month and the voxel GI is amazing. We were able to bake lighting for a 30k square meter store without doing a single lightmap. The bake took 6 hours and already looked better than anything we achieved in UE with the same scene. Downside of Unigine is the steep price for the engineering edition, but it's got some great tools and support.
Unigine was also the engine TM used before UR.

For urban planning the new TM trailer does look pretty promising but in the end, if you're doing cinematics, offline rendering is still the best choice for visual quality.
>>
>>627783
what mean "kek"?
>>
>>630139
it's like lulz but more sardonic

also, lurk more.
>>
>>630139
top zozzle
>>
File: poly10a.php.png (85 KB, 640x400)
85 KB
85 KB PNG
>>630139
I think it's something to do with racist frogs.
>>
File: feedback.png (3.02 MB, 1920x1080)
3.02 MB
3.02 MB PNG
>>626747
You're on your way, but there are a few major details missing.
>>
>>630272
bottom aoaale
>>
>>630388
stop making stuff up mate
>>
>>630402
sideways lulzies
>>
>>630387
>actual good feedback
>/3/
what is this? opposite day?
>>
File: Lahey.jpg (42 KB, 300x327)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>626748
>>
The news sims game looks good
>>
>>632641
are you using 4chan-x by any chance? it sorts the catalog incorrectly if you're using anything other than burger date format which is presumably why you've bumped this long-dead thread.
>>
>>632652
yep lol, i should fix that
>>
you need some Global Illumination.
Try it with 3ds max




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.