"Mid-Morning in Instanbul"

[jevinstudios]

http://www.jevin.com/graphics/Mosque.jpg

"Mid-Morning in Istanbul"


Modeled/UV Mapped in LightWave 8, then textured and rendered in Maya. Final compositing in AfterEffects with Knoll Light Factory.

Created by Kevin Soderlund / Jevin Studios (Copyright 2004)

[bobakabob]

Great work - it looks photorealistic! It would be cool to see more shots from different perspectives.

Bob

[adrian]

That's fantastic!

If you don't mind me asking, why use Maya as well? Is its' renderer that much better than LWs?

Adrian.

[jevinstudios]

Kabob & Adrian -- Thx for the kewl replies -- really appreciate the feedback!

In response to the 2nd reply, I do 90% of my modeling in LW (LOVE LW's modeling toolset -- the best in the biz, IMO), and all the rest in Maya. Maya has a stellar native renderer (a little slow, but produces exceptional results), in addition to 4 other rendering alternatives, including mental ray (over the past few releases, Alias has really improved their renderer, making it one of the best in any software app).

Also, I just love Maya all 'round -- especially for organic sculpting, lighting, and paint effects. Also, I can render multiple passes, layers and objects easily in Maya using the Attribute Spreadsheet Editor and Layer Panel (almost all of my projects are set-up in layers, rendered in passes, then shot into AfterEffects for compositing and post effects).

BUT, Maya still pales in comparison to LW's modeling toolset, so LW will always have a flagship role in my day-to-day business pipeline in the actual object creation. Working with LW's Modeler is pure joy -- will never give it up!!!!

[Kuzey]

Wonderful!!!

A night time render with all the lights and stuff would be fantastic ;)

Kuzey

[jevinstudios]

Here's a view from the opposite side of the structure, pulled back to show some of the surrounding buildings......


http://www.jevin.com/graphics/Mosque2.jpg

[adrian]

Excellent... I'm just dead jealous of the fact that you have access to the two coolest 3D apps on the planet!

Adrian.

[jevinstudios]

Adrian --

Don't be jealous. It's not the software you use, but how you use it that counts. I'm personally a "multi-app" believer -- I demand the best of both worlds (LW is the best for Modeling, while Maya is the best for dynamics, texturing and rendering). But I've also seen exclusively LW work that has blown some Maya stuff right out of the water (take the visual effects for "Children of Dune" for example -- some of the most spectacular 3D cityscapes ever produced for television!).

I love both applications, but they both have their shortcomings. By combining the two together, however, I feel I've got the best toolset in the biz. Save up your pennies, and you could have the same. I have no doubt that your own LW work is spectacular; this is just how I prefer to work, that's all.....

[Kuzey]

Coolness!!!

:D

Kuzey

[jevinstudios]

Thx, Kuzey!

K

[MorituriMax]

..It's not the software.. it's not the software.. sure, go ahead and tell us what a genius you are and it's just skill etc etc..

..grin.. just kidding... very nice atmosphere.. absolutely great use of all elements.. I have trouble just doing textures in photoshop and using them in LW, much less doing all the other nifty compositing stuff..

Keep em coming guys.. great work..

[somnambulance]

That is rad, the details are great. I like the power lines a lot. It is kinda hard to see some things because of the flare though (i hate flares). Do you have a render without the flare?

[Emmanuel]

The modelling details are great, the renderings look flat though and the lighting isn't sophisticated.The texturing is a bit generic, not very realistic either, its hard to tell what material is used for anything.
The rooms/windows are far too brightly lit inside.
All in all not realistic and hardly a good example of Maya's renderer,
pretty much looks like plastic to me.
Where have You used UV mapping in the first place in this city scape ?
I hardly see any use of it...

[jevinstudios]

The modelling details are great, the renderings look flat though and the lighting isn't sophisticated.The texturing is a bit generic, not very realistic either, its hard to tell what material is used for anything.
The rooms/windows are far too brightly lit inside.
All in all not realistic and hardly a good example of Maya's renderer,
pretty much looks like plastic to me.
Where have You used UV mapping in the first place in this city scape ?
I hardly see any use of it...

Ouch! Can't pleaz everyone, I guess...... No harm done, tho. Appreciate the feedback.

[Emmanuel]

It's not very easy to achieve realism with such city scapes.
The biggest problem I always spot is the contrast between vertical and horizontal lines, for example where the building meets the ground, there is a sharp "cut", whcih normally wouldn't be so obvious on a photo due to dust/dirt...on Your image its painfully visible in the shadow areas, for example on the mid-left side where the columns stand, they look like floating....same for the columns of the church....the shadow colour doesn't seem right either....

[PaQ]

I have to agree a bit with Emmanuel, it's far from an hyper realistic image. But I'm sure you can tweak the first image a little bit to archive something great ! Maybe working on the lighting and the sky, and remove this "ugly" lensflare :). The back buildings look to much like simple boxes, and the windows are reacting to "flat" and looks so clean !. Here's an image I found that can maybe help a bit :

http://www.thresholds.net/photo101/Aya%20Sophia%20Dawn.jpg

Cheers.

[glassefx]

Hey I like the render! It's a bit flat because that "slice of time" is one of the hardest to render AND look good in my opinion.

The shadows do need a little red added to the mix, and I dont like the glass? window on the top/right. I need to start making the related renders my wallpaper so I can see them when I discuss them. (No dual head here at work.)

I just wish everyone would quit the "lens-flair hate club." I mean come on! I see it as a point newbies bring up in conversation because back in 95 when the 3d bug hit everyone abused the shiat out of them. Back then some lens-flair hate was needed to steer the collective un-conscience the right direction.

Lens-flairs are a natural occurance within our imperfect world. This is because me made optics to record life. We are accustomed to seeing them in cinema and TV. Until 20 years from now when everything is produced "digital-up" we will be seeing them or post-houses will be busy removing them.

In Hollywood you never hear some choad dissing a lens-flair

[glassefx]

Hey someone please correct me if I am wrong but I've always thought and been told Newtek created the digital impervision of the naturally occuring lens-flair back in Amiga days when Lightwave was just a little Joey. (For our fellow Auzis.)

If this is true could someone (coud take Proton or someone on the kow like that) tell me the release ver and date approx.?


"People always think they are hot-snot but they're really cold boogers!"

[PaQ]

Lens-flairs are a natural occurance within our imperfect world

The world of lens physic, in 3D you can avoid this limitation so why add that kind of imperfection if it doesn't help. The photo above looks real without that effect I guess.

[glassefx]

I think the only renders that should use flairs are outdoor scenes or scenes depicting some energy of some sorts.... Like a tesla coil or something.

If you look at the real picture you can almost tell the optics about failed society again. Over to the left - in the clouds.

I am thinking if the camera incidence angle was a little smaller and/or the clouds were not there then we would see that ubiquitous, no notorious lens-flair yet again!

And for reasons not to alter the "imperfection?" I think his placement and overall lens-flair factor rates up there in the ole' "lens-flair is ok for this render" list.

[Emmanuel]

I think that this one is an exceptional piece of art:http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=134924

The lighting is excellent, and that adds tremendously to the realism.

[Verity]

I really like these images... a lot of work has gone into the modelling. Great work, Jevin, keep posting :)

[miso popovic]

yea, nice modeling, cool image!I think thou you should use Radiosity in your render, it will make a big difference in the shadow area!

[miso popovic]

wow! what an image at the end of that emmanuels link! that's to cool!

[muzzy]

I think, this is not look like to Istanbul:rolleyes:

[Emmanuel]

Hey !

That was just to give him an idea where to improve and how it could look better (since I was referring to the lighting/contrast etc).
I mean thats the reason why someone would post an image, to learn how people like it and/or give tips about how to improve...?

[glassefx]

That's Freakin' Tits!

I may go as far to say that is the best arch./outdoor render I've seen in some time.

simply, wow!