A few images just in case anyone is terminally bored <g>:
Three are buildings (renders of building models I'm working on). The file
size and a brief description are included with the links so you can decide
whether you really feel like looking ;) .
FUBARed and this page was only a quicky, mostly so I could see whether
uploaded files were even accessible via the dot-net URL.))
Nice attempt, are you looking for some C&C, if so I might be able to help
you out to get them looking better? What 3d software are you using?
Remove "NOSPAM" out of email address when replying directly
Lighting had to be tricky for me in the past too; I would use a light dome
for the sky and then use a point light or a direction light for the sun. if
you don't mind reading you might want to check out a book called "Digital
Lighting & Rendering"
I think if you used better texture maps I think that would help it improve a
lot, for the house render I have a few grass textures you could try for it,
I also have a few roof textures but there not the greatest yet..
One thing I see with the model (house model) is how the roof ends shouldn't
there be a box (not sure of the right term) were you could hang the gutters.
I guess it also depends on what style you would like your renders to be, are
you going for photo realistic?
I like your trademark idea
Remove "NOSPAM" out of email address when replying directly
Thanks!, I'm checking it out on Google. I've been using "3D Lighting:
History, Concepts, and Techniques" by Arnold Gaillardo, whose work I
respect - there is good info, tho' theory is never quite the same a s
practice ;) Also, I'm still trying to pin down goniometric lights versus
"regular" 3D lights and so on. That's something I'll be better able to
expereiment with in a few days (after the new computer arrives), since both
screen and file renders will be a lot faster.
I also have to tweak the horizon/fill lights - right now, for the sake of
render-time, I have them all set to the same values, but technically, they
should all have different values based upon their azimuth. There is a
circle of 16. I might also need to add another circle midway or so between
the horizon and the sun light-group, and then cut back on the directional
light component in the sun group.
For the sun group, I'm using a circle of 32 local/point/"light bulb" lights
with a directional light whose directional axis is perpendicular to the
plane of the circle. I want to tey IBL (image-based lighting) but again,
in a few days, once the new machine gets here. Current one is too slow,
it's only a Y2K 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird =:-(
One problem is that I also have a conflict between trying to represent
light as I see it, and the typical/popular representation, which seems to
me to be more like "overcast daylight". Still not sure how to resolve that
one. My experience of light and shadow (and their colors) seems to be more
intense than is typical, they're almost palpable/sculptural, so it's often
difficult for me to judge how much light is "enough" for the
Of possible interest, I just found this freeware program:
It's called "Sun Position Calculator". I think (if I understoond the
website) that it also takes atmospheric interference into account. I just
DLed it, have to get it onto the graphics machine and unzip to try.
This is also a nifty and veryinexpensive shareware sun-angle calculator:
Also, tho', I'm beginning think sometimes that if a texture is *too*
detailed, it ends up looking splotchy. That's something I still have to
pin down. It's no doubt also influenced by light, so I'm thinking i'll get
better textures if I cut down on the contrast and "diffuse" the light just
a bit more. I also ought to try out my cheapie digital camera on some
textures, see how I like it and if I do, maybe get a better one at some
OTOH, if I can avoid it, I avoid mixing too many scanned photos into 3D
(tho' I did use one, for the sake of time, for the background in the the
"rock haus" image) because they look too different from the 3D parts, and I
don't like that. Photos are good for finer textures, i.e. at a distance or
with a lot of repetitions, but for major items, such as trees, I prefer
modeling the object and then rendering it, preferably in the same light I'm
using in the scene I'm working on. Of course, I'd prefer to put in an
actual tree model (or several...), so I'm hoping the new machine will be
able to deal with that many polygons. I increasingly model my textures -
troof tiles or whatever - so that the texture looks more like the rest of
the 3D stuff.
The ground is just temporary but I'm trying to simulate a "scrubby" look,
dirt showing between low scrubby plants and rocks. It's got 5 layers, so
each has to be tweaked separately, and I admittedly didn't spend much time
on that yet. At the same time, I generally avoid grass in my "made for me"
pics because I hate lawns. For grass patches, I'd use a grass generator
and then render the result to use as a texture. That's what I also do for
roofs, model then render then adapt for texture use, but I think I tend to
"over-bump" the graininess on, for example, asphalt shingles. Probably
most things actually...textures tend to look "sparkly" to me, so I need to
remember to cut back on that for other viewers.
But all in all, yup, I'm still trying to refine texture use and lighting...
I didn't realize that the roof structure didn't show up at all in the pic -
I know what it is so I sort-of "saw" what didn't really show up...
The roof in the pic isn't a roof, but a line of vertical stone bricks
arranged around the rim of the flat roof to form a hollow that would
function as a rain collector, funneling the water down to a cistern. Yeah,
it's true, I have a "thing" for that idea in a desert house ;). I'll have
to choose another camera angle to show that, and refine the brick texture -
your observation makes it clear to me that there are too many repetitions,
so the thing is indistinct, which is not a good thing.
I am considering adding a "skirt" just under the vertucal stone bricks,
maybe copper. I really like those metal roofs.
That's a tough question, because I don't think I see light the same as
others do. Even my photos look different from those of other people I
know. I go in heavy for contrasts in light and shadow because (as I
mentioned above) to me, light and shadow have in and of themselves a sort
of sculptural quality that is, to me, almost palpable. A white sruface
with shadows on it to me "feels" like a three-dimensional object, a sort of
bas relief. So, to me, "photorealism" isn't "realistic", it's
"photographic". Also, photos are not reality and not unbiased
representations of reality. Take a photo, then go one F-stop up or down,
and the next photo (even of the exact same view) will be something
different from the first. Whcih is reality? Both and neither. It's like
taking bird photos - a white bird will show up as a white blob unless you
play with the F-stops so that the shadows can be seen. Then there is
focus, which is another issue - using a long lens blurs items as they get
away from the object of hight focus, but to me, that isn't actually "real",
because in reality, you can move your eyes and the forground immediately
comes into focus - IOW, it doesn't remain a blur. Additionally, photo
lighting generally seems to be more diffuse in most photos than I generally
experience or even tend to get in my own photos (because I prefer crisp
light and non-noon sun angles, and seek out high-contrast subjects). So I
think that the word "photorealism" is an oxymoron and think
"photorepresentation" is more accurate.
At any rate, going back to your question re: what sort of look/style of
render I'm reaching for: although I tend to try to represent "Kris-o-
vision", I know that, for the average viewer (IOW paid work), I might have
to learn how to cut back on the lighting/contrast and increase the
diffusion. At least, that suggestion has been made to me. I like a lot of
"sparkle" but that isn't the visual norm, and really, most paid work does
have to appeal to the norm. OTOH, that sort of thing is always difficult
for me to judge. Some people like "sparkle" and others don't - but I do
need to cut back on the contrasts a bit.
So I suppose your could say that what I *hope* to achieve is realism - but
not necessarily a "photographic" look.
Thanks :), I've been up and down on it because it's very different from my
usual thing. I do have a liking for interlocking shapes, tho' I tend to go
for interlocked spirals (round or square). Following the recent screw-up
of my dot-com website, I keep thinking it might be good to get a trademark
at some point. OTOH that might just be an extravagance ($273 or $373,
depending upon which form you use). I'd tried my initials interlocked, but
it never did much for me. And I was trying to avoind making something that
looked overtly Oriental - I do like a lot about esp. Japanese style, the
rythms and the clean lines, it's just that I think direct transfers (as
opposed to adaptations or even translations) of the building and decorating
styles, and esp. the written characters, has been overused to the point of
tiredness. So I was trying for something with clean lines, that
interlocekd, but was not a character/word. My first website was
blueparrot.com, but the site host screwed it all up and the site name was
bought out by someone else, I think it's a Danish pub or something like
that, but point being I can't really use that, even tho' I retain the 3D
parrot model on the current pages.
At any rate, once the new machine comes in, I'll re-render some things and
get the new/reworked website up, and there will be more images and updated
Thanks for your comments!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.