PDA

View Full Version : Need A Little Help With Lighting This Scene...



Aaron_Price
11-21-2009, 05:27 PM
I'm trying to get a good lighting set up similar to this model in my own version of the model. There is a simple pan animation which is going to roughly be around 600-700 frames. However I want to keep a good lightning rendering quality without having to render something that is 6-10 seconds long that is going to take a couple of days.

I'm rendering it out in D1 [PAL Widescreen] with the perspective cam which seems to render pretty quick to render. Taking 3 minutes to render the model which is placed inside a black sphere.

I have been trying to experiment with the different lights, changing brightness, colour but struggling to get a good result. Any help from lightning experts who can shine some light on the subject would be most helpful :thumbsup:

Kind Regards

Aaron

toby
11-21-2009, 06:20 PM
Is that from Superman?
If you want to avoid long rendertimes, I'd recommend backdrop radiosity, interpolated and cached, because the lighting here is very soft, and nothing moves but the camera, so non-anim cache will work, set frame steps to 10 or so. It might be easier to use a gradient background than find an hdr that matches this lighting.

Your key light looks too bright, and you have ambient turned on? Ambient's not very attractive.

The little lights they have at the base of the dome are really cool, helps with the scale too.

prometheus
11-22-2009, 07:51 AM
cool ..krypton city is one of my old time favourite scenographics.

Maybe a simple dome light could help, together with background radiosity.

and remember to create good surfaces as well, you wont get away
with lighting only.

Michael

prometheus
11-22-2009, 07:57 AM
Oh by the way, I would suggest you try and match the camera lenses
to get both the panoramic ratio more correct and the lenses, it always helps while tweaking to get an more exact look.

It looks like youré using bumpmaps to create cliff variations in the city?
I would suggest modeling it or using nurnies,greebles, otherwise it cant
make use of how the lights are distributed on the surfaces.

Michael

prometheus
11-22-2009, 09:08 AM
some volumetric fog could also help give a little atmospherics to the
whole scene, use backdrop color for fog color.

Michael

Aaron_Price
11-22-2009, 10:18 AM
It looks like youré using bumpmaps to create cliff variations in the city?
I would suggest modeling it or using nurnies,greebles, otherwise it cant
make use of how the lights are distributed on the surfaces.

Yeah using bumpmaps for the sides of the cliffs, what is nurnies and greebles??? Sorry you lost me there lol

I have tried it with a dome light, would I be better off multiple lights in the scene? What would be the best textures that would be best for the scene.

Kind Regards

Aaron

cagey5
11-22-2009, 10:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble

prometheus
11-22-2009, 02:34 PM
as I said, I wouldn´t use bumpmapping on the cliff surfaces, it´s
supposed to be some kind of terrace building me thinks and they need
to catch light and shadows properly.

you should be fine using just a dome light together with background radiosity, but you also need to put in a gradient backdrop either by
using gradient backdrop or use the textured environment and a gradient set to pitch and use a blueish color that is a little darker at the beginning and goes to more whitish in the end, this gradient will Light up the scene
and also help tinting the whole scene when used with radiosity.

you have to check up on greeble and nurnies, there are free plugins for it.

or simply try and model,bevel and smoth shift the sides of the city.

Michael

toby
11-22-2009, 03:48 PM
A dome light in addition to backdrop radiosity is pretty redundant isn't it?

Aaron_Price
11-22-2009, 08:47 PM
I downloaded that plugin Greeble and Nurnies installed it in Lightwave 9.6 tried it on the object. Even did a test on a flat segment plane. It does the simulation creates the new layer but the layers are empty!! The plugin doesn't do anything. Does it not work with version 9.6 or something???

prometheus
11-23-2009, 12:36 AM
A dome light in addition to backdrop radiosity is pretty redundant isn't it?

Not necessary, there´s some difference in the render results
using both or only radiosity, but sure, you could probably get away
with other complementary lights or simply tuning the backdrop gradient
and radiosity and surfaces.

It guess it depends on how the overall look should be, radiosity solely
might not bring forward some of the edgy surface quality.

Michael

prometheus
11-23-2009, 08:52 AM
I downloaded that plugin Greeble and Nurnies installed it in Lightwave 9.6 tried it on the object. Even did a test on a flat segment plane. It does the simulation creates the new layer but the layers are empty!! The plugin doesn't do anything. Does it not work with version 9.6 or something???

try this

http://earthwormjim.free.fr/lscript/modeler/greeble/index.html

and download the sample object, delete the first object on the first layer
and create a new ball..size it up a little.

make sure you have the first layer with the ball selected as a foreground layer (layer completly highlighted) then select all the other layers as background layers (hold down shift key and select those by clicking on the smaller parts of the layer icons, se the images on the site)

run the script and it should work, it works for me on windows xp 32 bit
lightwave 9.6

Michael

Aaron_Price
11-23-2009, 04:37 PM
Ok I downloaded it again, followed the setting and finally got it to work out, but how do I go about putting this to the side of my model? It seems to work on segments, sadly my model was created by drawing out using the Sketch tool, then creating the polygon and then extruding it downwards to give it depth.

shrox
11-23-2009, 04:53 PM
I don't think that particular plug-in will be helpful in this case. If the exact shape is not critical, I often use the bevel tool with a +/- setting to get general detail in something like a crystalline structure. I made a Krypton City model, and that is how I did it.

Aaron_Price
11-23-2009, 05:43 PM
I have attached with this message the object file of the model, I think I need a little help with the side cause I'm lost, tried the Bevel but it looked horrible. This is for a short video I'm doing, I will be glad to give credit on the video for thanks :)

prometheus
11-24-2009, 12:40 AM
as shrox mentioned, using bevel is a good idea or multishift, but you need
to divide the side of the city into some proper structures, you could
simply use the knife tool and cut it at several times at some areas, and you could also use merge polygons to avoid having only quads to bevel.

you can also create flat polystructures at back viewport in a seperate layer or create a
flat plane divided into some segments then select some of the polys and
merge them, delete the others and you have a little random structure, you could repeat this to get some more variations, then use these flat
structures on a background layer, use drill and stencil mode on the z axis
to stencil that structure on to your city model, then select some of those
areas and bevel them out 400 km on the shift parameters, and perhaps use the + - variations on that.

it requires some work thou.

Michael

Aaron_Price
11-24-2009, 07:10 PM
I have tried doing the bevel but just can't get any good results, I'm under so much stress at the moment, this has to be done before Xmas as well I have had this on my mind for weeks. But I'm stuck now cause it's past my level of ability to finish it. I hope one of you can be grateful enough to help me finish it. Cause I don't know what I'm doing to be honest I'm lost! :confused::cry:

toby
11-24-2009, 08:53 PM
I'll try some lighting, what's more important to you; matching the photo, or looking as good as it can?

Aaron_Price
11-24-2009, 09:02 PM
I'll try some lighting, what's more important to you; matching the photo, or looking as good as it can?

Bit of both really, any help would be grateful, I promise once it's done for the video you will get a credit and everyone else who has helped :)

shrox
11-24-2009, 09:04 PM
Bit of both really, any help would be grateful, I promise once it's done for the video you will get a credit and everyone else who has helped :)

What is it for?

toby
11-24-2009, 09:34 PM
What is it for?
:agree:
Yes it would help us to know.

prometheus
11-25-2009, 12:48 AM
I don´t think I have the time to do this for you, im busy with work right now at a new job.
And my computer at home is a mess that needs to be replaced.
I can only give some advice for the moment, maybe someone else has
spare time to help you out.

It looks like you only selected rows and beveled them all together, I think
you need to select polys in a more random way, merge some of the selected polys and bevel some sections out and repeat with some other polys.

It looks like you simply did a cut with knife tool and then selected some of the row polys at the bottom and top.

I would probably start doing some fancy structures by themself and drill and stencil them on the citywall surfaces and then bevel those created polys.

Michael

Aaron_Price
11-25-2009, 05:09 AM
What is it for?

I'm doing a big re-enactment scene from Superman The Movie with Jor-El and the villains. I wanted instead of using copyright material footage from the film. I wanted to recreate as much as I could 3D wise to go together with the acted filmed parts.

toby
11-25-2009, 05:40 PM
how's this
I set all the surfaces to white, grey didn't look right for snow/ice

prometheus
11-26-2009, 01:22 AM
That´s looking real good Toby:thumbsup:

Great lighting at the side of the dome.

I think the main light should be coming from a little more to the left though.

and the shadows at the side is a little bit dark, maybe some additional light
or more fog could help light it up a bit.

The color tone is great.
maybe a soft filter in the render would help smoth things out also.

as for the model, to match exactly, it should have been modeled at some smaller segment pieces, right now they are to big wich gives a much
smaller expression to the whole dome, se comparison images.

finally it needs some smaller segment terraces on the side.

Michael

Aaron_Price
11-26-2009, 02:43 AM
Thanks Toby love the lighting, looking at your lighting setup just shows to me I need to touch up on my homework lol

I imported it in Layout and added some light textures on the surfaces, I might try and have a go at the bevel on the sides again, I only need to worry about concentrating on the sides the camera goes over. I might try adding some more geometry on the surfaces.

toby
11-26-2009, 02:41 PM
Cool, glad you like it! I left out fill lighting to keep render times down, and it's rendered with gaussian soft already, any more softness should done in post if at all.

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 04:52 AM
I dont know if you want your render to look exactly like the reference since the reference image is actually a miniature with several light sources. And there is a distinct underlight coming from below you might want to add.

You can see the directional shadow edges.
I crushed levels to bring them out a little-
79662

A shadow map underfill, and the dome is illuminated by an area light below set to exclude all else-
79664

White lights, blue fog, FG- interpolated, and then a little post processing to adjust levels, color, and apply diffusion and grain-
79669

prometheus
11-27-2009, 08:15 AM
Nice tips Mr Rid..looking good.

oh..by the way, did you miss to hit the tab button and subdiv surface the dome:hey:

Michael

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 01:46 PM
Nice tips Mr Rid..looking good.

oh..by the way, did you miss to hit the tab button and subdiv surface the dome:hey:

Michael

Thanks P.

I just beveled some squares and loaded the first low res 'ball' I came to in my primitives folder. But I rarely subD since I run into too many problems with it, particularly with dynamics and baking.

But I find that I can light most scenes with no more than 3 lights. A widespread, bad habit I see is to use fill lights with no shadows. All illumination in reality casts a shadow. I primarily use area lights because they are the closest thing to real light sources. Use shadow maps sparingly as they are not realistically accurate, and I reserve them for rims or occasionally fills. I dont prefer using textured environment for GI ambience, but rather use an unseen sphere because I have more control over the faloff distance by scaling, and can readily see a mapped image in GL to position it. I also stick with the Classic camera because I usually find faster renders compared to equivalent Perspective settings.

Then the other half of the equation is to use post processing rather than waste too much time trying to tweak subtle qualities in render-intensive 3D.

toby
11-27-2009, 02:22 PM
I also stick with the Classic camera because I usually find faster renders compared to equivalent Perspective settings.

I don't find that at all, the first render I posted was perspective, gaussian reconstruction with *no aa at all*, 53 seconds. The trick is to always use one of the new reconstruction filters, they remove most geometric jaggies for (almost) free.

The classic camera needs at least enh. low aa and more than twice as long to match it. Then there's the possibility of a motion blur problem too.

Here's classic camera with no aa, gaussian, 46 sec.

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 03:42 PM
I don't find that at all, the first render I posted was perspective, gaussian reconstruction with *no aa at all*, 53 seconds. The trick is to always use one of the new reconstruction filters, they remove most geometric jaggies for (almost) free.

The classic camera needs at least enh. low aa and more than twice as long to match it. Then there's the possibility of a motion blur problem too.

Here's classic camera with no aa, gaussian, 46 sec.

But I see that GausSoft blurs too much and is not doing nearly as good a job of AA compared to 5-pass classic, or even 3-pass. It is particularly making a mess of the BG edges-

blowup of gif compare-
79682

And now try animating the camera with only guasSoft-
79681

Then moblur becomes an even more pertinent issue.

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 04:02 PM
I just noticed that the render result of Guassian Soft is identical to a render with 1pass AA and classic recon, then applying a 2. gauss blur in Fusion or Photoshop. But blur is something you definitely want to reserve for post processing where it can be changed, ramped and masked far more easily.

toby
11-27-2009, 04:33 PM
My use of gaussian soft was only to match the footage without post-processing, and no, it doesn't work without multi-passes for final quality, much less animation, especially since it doesn't remove jaggies on textures. What it does is reduce the amount of multi-pass aa that's needed. Try Box, it removes jaggies on geometry without softening the image. And it's definitely *not* the same as a post blur, when used with the perspective cam, unless there's something wrong with your install -

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 05:30 PM
...What it does is reduce the amount of multi-pass aa that's needed. Try Box, it removes jaggies on geometry without softening the image. And it's definitely *not* the same as a post blur, when used with the perspective cam, unless there's something wrong with your install -

Perspective Camera, AA-1, recon-Box, sampling-Fixed... are those the settings you mean?

It looks identical to Classic Camera, AA-1pass, recon-Classic. which is taking 1 second longer. I still dont see where there is an advantage (unless you are that worried about losing 1 second). PerspCam with Box or GuasBlur may be fine for quick-n-dirty, but you still need better quality AA for final renders, animation, and moblur. And thats where I have yet to see any PerspCam settings render faster than Classic with equivalent quality. I keep hearing that complex ray trace with refractions renders faster with the PerspCam with multi procs or something or other, but I have not run into it.

toby
11-27-2009, 06:03 PM
Perspective Camera, AA-1, recon-Box, sampling-Fixed... are those the settings you mean?

It looks identical to Classic Camera, AA-1pass, recon-Classic. which is taking 1 second longer. I still dont see where there is an advantage (unless you are that worried about losing 1 second). PerspCam with Box or GuasBlur may be fine for quick-n-dirty, but you still need better quality AA for final renders, animation, and moblur. And thats where I have yet to see any PerspCam settings render faster than Classic with equivalent quality. I keep hearing that complex ray trace with refractions renders faster with the PerspCam with multi procs or something or other, but I have not run into it.
Sure it's "quick-and-dirty" if you don't use aa, the same way classic low is quick-and-dirty. Can't you get the same results I just posted? Greatly reduced jagginess without blur? Jay Roth himself described the process of using the geo in some way to remove jaggies. If it's not working on your machine there's something wrong.

Removing most of the (geo) jaggies this way, in addition to adaptive sampling that re-evaluates before each aa pass (classic adaptive only checks once), plus the fact that you don't have to double the aa if you need a little increase, better use of multi-threading, motion blur that's never banded, all add up to faster times in most cases.

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 06:19 PM
Sure it's "quick-and-dirty" if you don't use aa, the same way classic low is quick-and-dirty. Can't you get the same results I just posted? .

Yes, Perspective with Box reduces jaggies, but it reduces jaggies the same as using Classic with 1pass (not Classic low, 5-pass which takes a longer but looks better), and they take the same time to render. So I dont see an advantage.

I have been told many times that the Perspective Camera can some how render faster than the Classic with approximately equivalent AA quality, but so far each time I sit down with the person saying this, we find Classic settings that render faster or the same. I've brought this up on other threads and am still waiting to see a scene that demonstrates a practical difference when compared fairly. I know there is suppose to be a difference but I just can not find it.

Cageman says there is a difference with many ray recursions and multithreading but he could not post his scene example from work. Although I dont normally need more than 2 recursions, and at anywhere I work we normally render animations 1 frame per proc on a network, so multithreading efficiency does not matter as much.

toby
11-27-2009, 07:55 PM
Yes, Perspective with Box reduces jaggies, but it reduces jaggies the same as using Classic with 1pass (not Classic low, 5-pass which takes a longer but looks better), and they take the same time to render. So I dont see an advantage.

I have been told many times that the Perspective Camera can some how render faster than the Classic with approximately equivalent AA quality, but so far each time I sit down with the person saying this, we find Classic settings that render faster or the same. I've brought this up on other threads and am still waiting to see a scene that demonstrates a practical difference when compared fairly. I know there is suppose to be a difference but I just can not find it.

Cageman says there is a difference with many ray recursions and multithreading but he could not post his scene example from work. Although I dont normally need more than 2 recursions, and at anywhere I work we normally render animations 1 frame per proc on a network, so multithreading efficiency does not matter as much.
:confused:
As you can see in the first ball & plane render, classic never gets rid of jaggies without aa, for me. Are you telling me that it does for you? Of the two images I posted, neither the classic or perspective cam renders should have the jaggies that I got in the first image?

Mr Rid
11-27-2009, 08:44 PM
:confused:
As you can see in the first ball & plane render, classic never gets rid of jaggies without aa, for me. Are you telling me that it does for you? ...

Classic with no AA does not get rid of jaggies. But Classic with 1-pass AA & Classic recon does get rid of jaggies, exactly the same as Perspective with Box, and I ony see a one second difference in a Krypton render. So the Perspective Camera is not giving me any notable advantage.

But all this is also irrelevant as you move on to final quality AA and moblur settings in a practical scene.

toby
11-27-2009, 09:42 PM
Classic with 1-pass AA & Classic recon does get rid of jaggies
Classic 1-pass; you mean PLD? Last time I tested PLD, it was absolute garbage. Longer rendertimes than classic with lower quality, and couldn't deal with fine lines at all. That was 8.5, maybe I should try it again.

Here's a scene that's faster with the persp cam, the King's Treasure scene from the CGchannel lighting challenge, and it's only 2 ray recursions. You wouldn't see a benefit with so little raytracing like the krypton scene.

Even if the classic cam wasn't any slower I still wouldn't use it for final quality, the stepped motion blur, which is also tied to the aa passes, is pretty archaic.

Mr Rid
11-28-2009, 02:02 AM
Classic 1-pass; you mean PLD? Last time I tested PLD, it was absolute garbage. Longer rendertimes than classic with lower quality, and couldn't deal with fine lines at all. That was 8.5, maybe I should try it again..

Well, Classic 1-pass is exactly the same as using Box in the Perspective.



Here's a scene that's faster with the persp cam, the King's Treasure scene from the CGchannel lighting challenge, and it's only 2 ray recursions. You wouldn't see a benefit with so little raytracing like the krypton scene..

Ok, but as I am saying, these are not practical settings for final render with the overt jaggies. Now try some final render settings to anti the aliasing and noise.

For example, here's a blow up to see the AA and noise up close.
In image 1, Classic camera 5-pass adequately kills jaggies and area light noise.

In image 2, Perspective camera, Box, with .02 threshold does not kill noise, and does not kill jaggies quite as well, and takes the same amount of time.

In image 3, Perspective camera, Box, with .01 does kill noise and jaggies but takes lonegr to render.


79696



Even if the classic cam wasn't any slower I still wouldn't use it for final quality, the stepped motion blur, which is also tied to the aa passes, is pretty archaic.

That is what most seem to think, but what I keep finding is that Classic moblur usually works as well as Photoreal blur and renders faster. The only time I need PR moblur is when an object moves extremely fast, or when DOF is occasionally needed in the render. Usually it is better to leave DOF for post.

Heres an example of photoreal blur that takes longer, leaves a lot of noise, and is mysteriously squashing the specularity on a shiny surface-
79697

Blowup
79698

Mr Rid
11-28-2009, 02:28 AM
Classic 1-pass; you mean PLD? Last time I tested PLD, it was absolute garbage. Longer rendertimes than classic with lower quality, and couldn't deal with fine lines at all. That was 8.5, maybe I should try it again..

Well, Classic 1-pass yields exactly the same result as using Box in the Perspective.



Here's a scene that's faster with the persp cam, the King's Treasure scene from the CGchannel lighting challenge, and it's only 2 ray recursions. You wouldn't see a benefit with so little raytracing like the krypton scene..

Ok, but as I've said, these are not practical settings for final render with the overt jaggies. Now try some final render settings to adequately anti the aliasing and noise.

For example, here's a blow up-

79699

Image 1, Classic camera 5-pass adequately kills jaggies and area light noise.

Image 2, Perspective camera, Box, with .02 threshold does not kill noise, but kills jaggies (although not quite as well), and takes the same amount of time.

Image 3, Perspective camera, Box, with .01 does kill noise and jaggies but takes longer to render than the equivalent Classic 5-pass.

So equivalent AA settings in the Perspective cam take longer to render.



Even if the classic cam wasn't any slower I still wouldn't use it for final quality, the stepped motion blur, which is also tied to the aa passes, is pretty archaic.

That is what most seem to think, but what I keep finding is that Classic moblur works as well as Photoreal blur in most cases and renders faster, without noticeable stepping. The only time I need PR moblur is when an object moves extremely fast, or when DOF is occasionally needed in the render. Usually it is better to leave DOF for post.

Heres another example of photoreal blur taking longer, is much noisier, and is mysteriously squashing the specularity on a shiny surface(?)-

scene- 79702

79700

Blowup
79701

toby
11-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Ok, but as I've said, these are not practical settings for final render with the overt jaggies. Now try some final render settings to adequately anti the aliasing and noise.

For example, here's a blow up-

Image 1, Classic camera 5-pass adequately kills jaggies and area light noise.

Image 2, Perspective camera, Box, with .02 threshold does not kill noise, but kills jaggies (although not quite as well), and takes the same amount of time.

Image 3, Perspective camera, Box, with .01 does kill noise and jaggies but takes longer to render than the equivalent Classic 5-pass.

So equivalent AA settings in the Perspective cam take longer to render.

I'm not getting that result at all; all the renders on the right in the attached image are PLD, and all are noisier or took much longer (title of each frame describes type, passes and time). Going below .02 on the AS can double your rendertimes with no improvement, more passes is a better solution for low-contrast noise.



Heres another example of photoreal blur taking longer, is much noisier, and is mysteriously squashing the specularity on a shiny surface(?)-

scene-

Blowup


Just tried your scene, for me it's faster with the perspective camera; 35sec to 48. But yes sometimes it's slower, I'm not saying classic is always the slow one. And I wouldn't call the persp render 'much' noisier, it's noise that you can't see unless you're looking for it, just like most film. But 2 more passes motion blur takes care of it and takes about 5 seconds longer.

Took a little while to figure out why it gets so dark; it's the shadow map on the key light. I guess that's another example of shadow maps not supporting transparency, maybe the same problem Worley had with fprime. It also sped up after switching it to raytrace, 24sec. I'll try to remember to render with classic if I want to use shadow maps -

JonW
11-29-2009, 04:23 AM
Back to the copyright issue.

Even if you are not using some copyright material. If you make something similar to that original material you could very easily be infringing copyright.

It would be wise to run it past a copyright expert.

toby
11-29-2009, 05:09 AM
Back to the copyright issue.

Even if you are not using some copyright material. If you make something similar to that original material you could very easily be infringing copyright.

It would be wise to run it past a copyright expert.
Unless he's making money from it, they won't spend one minute of their lawyers time to do anything about it. If it's for personal use you can bet they won't care about someone having fun with a 30yr old movie.

Mr Rid
11-29-2009, 03:59 PM
I'm not getting that result at all; ...



Just tried your scene, for me it's faster with the perspective camera-

How many threads, and what type proc are you using?


...But 2 more passes motion blur takes care of it and takes about 5 seconds longer.-

I dont understand that at all. Each additional pass of moblur greatly increases render time.



Took a little while to figure out why it gets so dark; it's the shadow map on the key light.-

Now thats good to know. The problem is only with Photoreal Blur and not the Perspective Camera itself.

toby
11-29-2009, 05:16 PM
How many threads, and what type proc are you using?1, 2 or 8 threads are about the same, proc is 2x2 ghz G5 IBM. (in 3 days I'll have my 8-core! :bday:) Fastest time was 47.3 sec.



I dont understand that at all. Each additional pass of moblur greatly increases render time.
Even on this small scene? I've attached an image of the render stats -



Now thats good to know. The problem is only with Photoreal Blur and not the Perspective Camera itself.
I think it's more a problem of shadow maps, just like the opaque shadows you get with glass. If you use multi-passes instead of adaptive sampling then there's no problem, see second attachment

Aaron_Price
11-30-2009, 06:52 AM
Hey guys sorry I have been away for a couple of days, Friday was my 25th birthday, gosh quarter of a century old and been recovering from a terrible first time hangover as I don't normally drink :grumpy: And had some other family issues.

I will upload a new rendering with the beveled work in a couple of days, just having a lot of problems at the moment. Especially finding any work and money.

Aaron_Price
12-07-2009, 09:10 PM
Hey guys, well I sat for nearly 3 hours trying to get the bevel to work but just ending up with horrible results, very frustrating. Any more ideas???

Mr Rid
12-08-2009, 08:07 PM
I dont see any way around just modeling those ledges.

prometheus
12-09-2009, 12:17 AM
I dont see any way around just modeling those ledges.

Exactly, it will most likely pay of in the end result anyway if you invest
some time in doing some detailed modeling parts.
You can always just place them halfways inside the main structures
or at the intersection.

you could try booleans aswell.

I would suggest you play around with segments first instead of trying
to work on the whole structure at once.

Michael

Aaron_Price
12-09-2009, 05:03 PM
This is my final result I leaving it as it is, all I need to know now is how to get this light to light up under the sphere cause when I did it. Nothing shows up. And I need to have a black sky instead of a grey one showing.

This project is driving me to the nut house, just need to get this damn thing finished before I lose it. :(

toby
12-09-2009, 06:32 PM
You mean the ring of point lights? They were pretty close to the walls, if they moved a little bit they might be blocked.

Aaron_Price
12-09-2009, 07:29 PM
Ahhhh got it, ok here is a repost of the image with the ring of lights corrected. Ok what do I do about the grey background, which is obviously being created by the fog and other setting? But need to have a black backdrop, but keeping the colour and light settings that is there at the moment.

dwburman
12-09-2009, 08:59 PM
If you want a plain black background, simply make a plain black image and set it as the "Background image" in the Compositing Panel (ctrl+F7).

This assumes you set the gray color in the Backdrop panel. If you're using a gray sphere, open the sky object properties and under the Render tab check "unseen by camera"

Aaron_Price
12-10-2009, 10:44 AM
Ok rendering it now in Widescreen PAL size, Quicktime format with perspective camera. 769 frames, according to the rendering system, it will take about 11 hours and 25 minutes to render the whole video scene.

prometheus
12-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Consider render out to images, in case of crashes and for a better workflow to process images in after effects etc, if you have it that is.

Michael

Aaron_Price
12-13-2009, 09:45 AM
prometheus it render no problem took about 10 hours instead of the 11 I originally said. I took it into Sony Vegas and after applying a glow effect I got something which I'm finally happy with.

Here is the whole complete opening scene to Krypton...

Aaron_Price
12-13-2009, 08:59 PM
My next challenge is to get the lighting to work on this scene picture attached.

I have created the simple model, I'm not too concerned with the backdrop as I can put that in later. However having trouble lightning the floor up when the sphere opens up. I got the sphere opening up, tried putting a light outside the flipped sphere but lights the base flooring even when the sphere is closed.

Any ideas?

toby
12-13-2009, 09:13 PM
Looks pretty good! But prometheus is right, it's risky to render to a video file.

Single-sided polygons only cast shadows from one side, just make the dome double sided or better yet, give it thickness.