PDA

View Full Version : Character: Mechanical Gnat



melak
11-04-2003, 11:56 AM
Hi All !

This is my latest work. :)
I would be interested in your opinion.

Parameters : Only procedural textures were used , and 2.5 million polygons.

http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/02.jpg


1600x1600 resolution

http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/05.jpg

hrgiger
11-04-2003, 11:59 AM
That's awesome work, I would submit that to the gallery...

How long did it take you to create that?

melak
11-04-2003, 12:12 PM
The modelling took me 40 hours , the texturing 20 hours.
The rendering was very hard job . :)
Even till now I am not ask to render it in a higher resolution than 1600x1600 .
Even not with the SplitRender. :(

Jooa
11-04-2003, 01:38 PM
:eek:

cagey5
11-04-2003, 04:38 PM
I really like this. Nice work indeed. Gallery material.

tisoy
11-04-2003, 05:13 PM
I wish I could model like that......

riki
11-04-2003, 08:44 PM
Nice job, some of the finer detail is a bit hard to see.

Cageman
11-04-2003, 09:02 PM
Wholy god damn ****! 40 hours to model that thing!? Wow... amazing! :eek:

RiGLEY
11-05-2003, 03:01 AM
Gyönyörű, nagyon tetszik !!! :-)

pauland
11-05-2003, 05:28 AM
It's an excellent model, I can appreciate the hard work that's gone into the modelling and rendering.

As a matter of personal taste, I tend to see insects as rather simple streamlined, efficient organisms and because of that, I would say that the extreme detailing on the model takes something away from it.

Great work though, even if I think 'less is more' in this case!

Thanks for posting it.

Paul

cathuria
11-05-2003, 07:51 AM
Outstanding work and just delightful to stare at...
With this level of detail, some close-up shots with more contrasty lighting might be really awesome.

2.5 million polys in a single model -- now there's a goal to shoot for:D

Sytho
11-05-2003, 08:23 AM
that's very nice!

think 'ts the most detailed object ive ever seen...but the render is waaaaaay to bussy....

maybe you could make a more simple render, use just a black or white background, without shadow or reflection....and i think if you cleared the texture of the wings, make i blue transparant or something...that should do the trick!

greedo-sytho

melak
11-06-2003, 02:00 AM
Hi guys!
Thanks for the criticisms, I'm going to use your advise and make a new reder.

starbase1
11-06-2003, 05:33 AM
I agree with the idea of a simpler view of this wonderful object, go for a very plain background.

Looking forward to seeing the next render.

Nick

glassefx
11-06-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by melak
Hi guys!
Thanks for the criticisms, I'm going to use your advise and make a new reder.


Do not buckle under the pressure of suggestion/criticisim...

I think a blue reflective floor is pretty simple... Yeah the first render is a tad busy, but the more I gaze the more I like as is.

I think the blue floor render and have its wings flappin with a nice motion blur on them and somehow make the wings blur less the nearer it gets (blur) to the wings connection point to the thorax.

I think that would take away some business of the detail which is high in the wings (which I like) and give a sense of life or motion.

Either way, really nice work that makes me want to F9 everything.


peace.

melak
11-07-2003, 12:07 PM
Here is a new render.:D

http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/Gnat2k.jpg

glassefx
11-07-2003, 01:22 PM
Melak,

I like the new render - I keep finding myself looking at the shadow instead of the gnat. Not that it looks bad or wrong, I'm just telling ya... I think its all the detail from the gnat. I still think it would look killer with the wings moving with motion blur decreasing as the wing gets closer to the attachment points on the thorax.

peace.

Oh Heck
11-07-2003, 04:19 PM
That is simply amazing. Incredible detail.

starbase1
11-07-2003, 05:39 PM
I think the new wing pattern is a MASSIVE improvement.

I dread to think what your render times are, but with this stunning (and effective) level of detail, I really think you would also benefit from higher AA settings. Sorry to say, but some of the finest detail still looks a little ragged. Particularly the last bits on the front legs - I suspect you are using adaptive AA, with too high a threshold.

Please dont take this as criticism - you are way beyond my abilitys, but this level of detail demands extreme AA.

Either that or sample down a bit!

Nick

PS - Not gallery material! But only because the gallery images are presented at far too low a resolution to do it justice! You are too good for the gallery!

:D

Drakaran
11-07-2003, 10:56 PM
a lot of the business feel to me feels like it's coming from all the specular surfacing. I wonder if doing some Fresnel on this would help? The detail of the model is really great, the texturing is a little weaker. I'd play with the lighting a little, try to soften it with an area light or something. maybe pull down the spec settings a little or dirty up the prodecural maps so they aren't quite so clean. Great modeling and execution. The blue background wasn't bad, just tied in too well with the colorings of the model.

melak
11-08-2003, 01:48 PM
Hi guys, thanks for the criticisms and the advice, I'm trying to use your advice, soon I will send a new picture.:D

A Mejias
11-10-2003, 06:25 PM
This is a great model!!! The problem is it's being severely hurt by the surfacing and lighting. Remember that working in LW is just like working in a real film or photo studio. Most of the same rules and techniques apply. In this case you should use the same lighting (and surfacing) techniques used to photograph reflective metallic subjects.

There are plenty of great studio still life photo technique books available that show just how to light reflective and metallic objets. I recommend you all buy one or to or at least look through some fine jewelry catalogs to see what they do. I’ll outline some of the basics of lighting (and surfacing) reflective and metallic surfaces (I’ll call them chrome for short) here.

1. Chrome sees EVERYTHING, therefore it will reflect EVERYTHING in it’s environment!!!
Keep the environment simple! Depending on the mood or look you want use a plain black or a white environment. Many photographers paint part of their studio black and cover everything in black when shooting chrome. Conversely they will use a cyclorama (for large subjects) or a light tent (for small subjects) to surround the subject with controllable light.

2. Chrome will look FLAT if it has nothing to reflect.
Once you blot out all extraneous reflections, you’ll want to show off the SHAPE of the chrome subject by creating very controlled reflections. This is done with lights and reflectors. Light-boxes, umbrellas or panels are used to control the shape of the lights so they make pleasing reflections. White reflector cards are also used to give definition to select areas. When the subject is surrounded by a light tent, the light is blocked or reduced from select areas to give the opposite effect of defining the shape of and enhance select detail.

3. The more detailed the chrome object the simpler the lighting and environment should be.
A ball would need more things to reflect to define its shape than a say an engine block. The many surfaces facing different directions are more likely to reflect any differences in the environment.

In LW these techniques are best done with an environment gradient. Keep the gradient very simple (2 colors) for detailed objects and a bit more complex (3 colors) for smooth objects. Use large white luminous rectangles parented to lights to give that light-box reflection look also use them by themselves in select areas. Use large black or dark rectangles to block the areas of the environment from reflecting in select areas of the subject. You can set “Unseen by Camera” for the rectangles so you can put them wherever you need them. It beats cutting holes in them to poke the camera lens through like you have to do in a real studio. :) For ultimate control you may want to turn off Specularity on all and use only reflective cards or turn it down on the chrome surfaces.

In the case of your gnat you could greatly improve the image by simplifying your environment gradient.
Try:
Zenith: 200, 200, 200
Sky: 0, 0, 0
Ground: 0, 0, 0
Nadir: 200, 200, 200

You may also want to try:
Sky Squeeze 4.0
Ground Squeeze 4.0

These setting should reduce the busy look and allow the gnat’s real colors to come out. Also try reducing the Ray Recursion Limit as much as possible. Start at 1 and go up until your transparent parts look good.

BTW. I don’t like the new wing texture. Try using some larger areas of color divided by thin pipes.

Hope that helps.

Intuition
11-11-2003, 12:19 PM
Good Lord,
That is really awesome. I am jealous. I like the last shot alot.

Was wondering though, and I am sure everyone has certain things they want to see, have you rtied using a spot light to light up the gnat?

You should use a spot light and set the light to inverse distance fall off. You'll have to play with the distance setting based on the scale of your model/scene. This makes the light diffuse more nicelyand softly. that is if you set it right. too much distance and you'll blow it out. too little and it will be flat and dark.

Then instead of raytracing you should use a shadow map with memory size of 3000. Use about a 3 to a 5 shadow softness and make sure you check the Shading noise reduction in the Global light settings so you wont have alot of noise in the shadow.

Just my 2 cents :D.

diablo1000000
11-12-2003, 05:44 AM
One thing that I struggle with in 3D is to make things look ‘intricate’. Those tiny details that take so long to set up, yet add an involved detail to the work. Yet there’s tons in this picture, and I love it!

The tiny pistons, gears and pneumatics in this image are wonderful! :D

Good job!

T x

js33
11-13-2003, 04:48 AM
That's an insane amount of detail. :D
How long did it take to model that?

Cheers,
JS

lardbros
11-14-2003, 07:04 AM
Stunning, and incredibly beautiful. Imagine if it existed, flying about and at only half a cm long! I'd never squash one ever again.

Not much crit, but agree with the antialiasing comments... too good for the gallery!!!??? Too bloody good for JPEG too!!! Think that the fact it's a JPEG causes some of the detail to be unclear.

I am soooo impressed though,
next i wanna see a dragonfly, a spider, a wasp, an ant...........!!!!

jat1
11-14-2003, 07:12 AM
How long have u been using 3D packages and lw? that model is ace, can u give us a wireframe shot of it? and does ur pc cope with the amount of polys there when u rotate the viewer?

chrisisbacky2k
11-14-2003, 08:59 AM
holy crap 2.5 million polys!!!!!!!!!!

what kind of machine have you got that can even handle that in Open GL let alone the rendering time?!

my pc would probably implode if it tried to handel something like that!:p

nice work though, one of the nicest i've seen for a while!

spinn
11-14-2003, 09:52 AM
yeah dammit! 2.5 million pollies.. how long does it take to render that ? i'd never dream about it. i guess my computer would just melt away if i tried to load something like that into layout, and if i tried rendering it, heck, my computer would become so hot that the internal parts just vaporized under such high pressure that it would eventually trigger a fusion reaction in my livingroom that would vipe out all life in the northern hemisphere and cause nuclear winter on earth for like 10 000 millenias until the sun grows so big that it can... eh.. sorry. well anyway, i promise i won't try it :)

btw, is this thingy rigged? will you animate it? do, do do!

cheers dude, wonderful job! people think bugs are creepy, but i find them rather faschinating. somethimes i think their purpose here on earth is actually to inspire folks to make great mechanery like this, honestly :D

well anyway, how did you achieve this ammount of d-tail? it is more eye candy on this one, than all my models togheter!
i see some copied elements on the wings and stuff like that, pleasepleaseplease gimme some tricks, hints anything?!

melak
11-16-2003, 03:06 PM
Hi ! :)

I would like to thank you for the lots of advice, I have learnt an awfully lot from it.
Some answers to the questions:
- this model was not prepaired for animating, it would be more time to modify it than to
make a new one;
- I have been using lw for about one year - formerly i used 3dsmax;
- to prepaire the model took me about 3 weeks, i worked 2-3 hours in the evenings;
- the geometry took me 40 hours to make (i noticed the time i was using);
- the rendertimes were different: in 1024x768 resolution G.I. it took 14 hours, in
2k without G.I. it took 4-6 hours;
- my computer configuration: AMD 2500 + Barton, 1Gb Ram , 120Gb Hdd


http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/LW_Gnat_Szuku.jpg



http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/LW_Gnat.jpg


http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/LW_Lab01.jpg


http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/LW_Lab02.jpg


http://roudes.kerekperec.hu/Gnat/LW_Pot.jpg

starbase1
11-17-2003, 05:51 AM
Awesome attention to detail, and thanks for letting us watch it develope. It looks absolutely stunning now - the changes have really helped bring out the structure.

Nick

glassefx
11-17-2003, 10:42 AM
One word...


DUDE!


peace and GOD Bless.

Cageman
11-17-2003, 02:09 PM
:eek:

MorituriMax
11-17-2003, 02:13 PM
Sheoot! The leg shots by themselves are worth the price of admission!

You're giving me an inferiority complex you.. you... grrr!

That is one insanely detailed piece of lw heaven..

monfoodoo
01-02-2006, 12:43 AM
That is really cool.The more i look at it,the more i see. scott

synist
01-03-2006, 06:25 AM
Great work Melak.
I love the detail in the work and i think the new render is a vast improvement over the previous ones. I particularly like the new colours and aged metal look.
I would like to know how you plan and prepare for such a detailed project.
Also, how did you do the bike chain for the legs?
Thanks for sharing you work.
Synist

DM67
01-06-2006, 05:19 PM
outstanding work dude :dance: :eek:

:thumbsup:
Tony

mattclary
01-18-2006, 01:42 PM
I actually prefer the second render with the blue reflective surfaec. What I think would look really neat, is if the surface was WATER. Have small ripples eminating from each of the feet.

zardoz
01-19-2006, 02:16 AM
There's a lot of work in this...but the high reflections can't let you see all the details of the modelling...maybe you could change some of the materials from shiny metal to vinyl or plastic/rubber...that could help to show your model a lot better.

And a simple white ground with ambient occlusion would help too...IMHO.

:thumbsup:

EmperorPete
01-19-2006, 10:32 AM
WHOAH. That is incredibly impressive. The modelling alone blew me away. Is there any chance we could see an untextured shot of this?

Sculley
01-19-2006, 04:40 PM
Love it :) I dont think its too busy.. i think if the picture was scaled down it would remove some of the noise and make you see the whole picture at once :)

Must try an insect some time... maybe a mechanical slug with a hover skirt or something.

Twisted_Pixel
01-19-2006, 05:43 PM
If using Firefox browser.

Right click -> View image, scales it to fit window.

You do lose some of the detail, but you can always zoom in where you wish.

zardoz
01-20-2006, 05:36 AM
silly me...I don't now why but I couldn't see the renders in page 2...

that's exactly what I was saying...IMHO now it looks a lot better, we can see all the modelling.

Maybe you could render one only with backdrop radiosity without reflections, etc.