PDA

View Full Version : Texturing Opinion & Background Image



THREEL
03-25-2008, 12:38 AM
Hi everyone!

Just wanting to get an opinion on the best type of texturing to use on Greek-style Columns. Here are some renders of what I have so far. If I remember correctly, I believe I used one of the generic presets. Any thoughts on a procedural texture that might look good, or is this a job for a paint program?

Also, the background image was put in place using the compositing tab in Layout. How would I go about making that a static background? It seems as though the background moves right along with the camera. Is there a way to keep it from moving, or do I need to make a plane and place the image on that?

BTW--Don't worry about any actual compositing, because I haven't gotten that far, yet.

Eventually, I hope to start a thread in the WIP, but I need to work out these issues first. What do you think of my building location? I wonder what kind of building permits I'd have to have to construct a habitat there. :lol:

As always, any help is much appreciated.

AL

fgreen
03-25-2008, 03:41 PM
A couple of layers or nodes of marble may work well here as a base texture for color with maybe the same textures feeding the specularity. After that this would be a good time to try painting in the stains (also dirt, chips and etc) that would build up around the bases in the seams and also drip down from the tops onto the columns. You could probably use clyndrical mapping, but would get more precision with UV maps.

Surrealist.
03-31-2008, 06:21 PM
William Vauhgn also has a tutorial on the occlusion node that I think you will find useful.

For the BG, put it on a polygon. Just make sure you have enough room and of course resolution to do any panning of the camera.

If it is for a still shot, you can leave it as a BG image but instead of moving the camera, move the objects into place so that they match the perspective of the BG image.

THREEL
03-31-2008, 08:20 PM
Nodes are out for now, :lwicon: 8.5, don'tcha know. I'll have to use layers. Also, I'll see what I can come up with in PhotoPaint for texturing.

I may just see if I can build a 3D backdrop, then I won't have to worry about camera placement. We'll see. If I go with the static image, or video, what will work better, a plane, or a partial sphere? My thought is a plane.

BTW--How does the modeling look? Here is the image I'm using for reference. I'm not worried about any feathery portions that may appear in the image, and I will be adding the knob that appears at each end.

tHANX!

AL

Surrealist.
03-31-2008, 09:14 PM
Oh yeah I forgot about 8.5

For video one thing you do is use a polygon that is sized to the ratio of your camera and footage. You can parent it to the camera and use the Camera Mask plugin (custom objects) that will return the exact distance and size you need to set the polygon from the camera to get a perfect match. The video footage should match this aspect ratio of course and the camera would have the same setting.

In this scenario the objects on the set remain stationary. The camera then would have to match the moves in the video and you also have to match the focal length of the lens as best as you can.

The modeling looks pretty good I'd say. Would like to see wires of course. But looks pretty good.

JohnMarchant
04-01-2008, 03:58 AM
I would use a subtle procedural marble combination. Nothing to radical there are very few examples of columns that had radical colors, mostly just subtle changes. Also use the same for the spec as well as the different stone layers have different spec properties.

Regards, John

THREEL
04-02-2008, 11:56 PM
The modeling looks pretty good I'd say. Would like to see wires of course. But looks pretty good.

Richard: Here's some wires for you to digest. I'm sure I can clean it up some more. We'll see what I can do as I go along.


I would use a subtle procedural marble combination. Nothing to radical there are very few examples of columns that had radical colors, mostly just subtle changes. Also use the same for the spec as well as the different stone layers have different spec properties.

Regards, John

John: I'll be working on the texturing as I go along as well. Sounds like some good ideas. Most of the fake columns I see at banks and the like are painted white, w/dirt build-up.

tHANX for your input guys! Maybe I can get back into it, now that I have my LW freezing up problem solved, I hope.

AL

THREEL
04-02-2008, 11:58 PM
Darn 5 file limit!

Here's 2 more.

Surrealist.
04-03-2008, 02:14 AM
Hey Al,

That all looks real good.

The only place I see for any improvement is here:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57047&d=1207202149

Nothing drastic but you could remove half of the edges between the groves.

Other than that, looking real good.

And I think you did a great job here:

http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57049&d=1207202307

Nice work. :thumbsup:

THREEL
04-03-2008, 11:52 AM
tHANX Richard!

I'll copy the column to another layer & then put BandGlue to the test. BandGlue became another favorite tool of mine, after William showed it off in one of his video tutes. I was just trying to go for a rounder column.

AL

Surrealist.
04-04-2008, 12:43 AM
Cool,

One little thing I just noticed. It does not seem to be giving you a huge problem but it is generally good to keep a very clean mesh I think. Just a good house cleaning habit. It will also help set up a cleaner mesh for the column all the way around.

There is a five star (five poly point) where I circled. See if you can follow my guide to the left for a better polyflow.

THREEL
04-04-2008, 01:05 AM
There is a five star (five poly point) where I circled. See if you can follow my guide to the left for a better polyflow.

Actually, I just noticed that it's a 6 poly point. The inset is where I started the column as I used a 1/4 sphere. I'll have to do some thinking on this one.

tHANX Richard!

AL

Surrealist.
04-04-2008, 04:55 AM
So it is, now that I actually count it. You can fix it basically the same way.

THREEL
04-06-2008, 11:30 PM
So it is, now that I actually count it. You can fix it basically the same way.


Richard: How's this look? Sorry it took so long, I was tending to other business.

tHANX!

AL

Surrealist.
04-07-2008, 04:44 AM
Yeah you nailed the polyflow alright. You could probably lose one edge loop on the curve (top of the grove) but other than that, looks good. :thumbsup:

THREEL
04-07-2008, 08:00 AM
Yeah you nailed the polyflow alright. You could probably lose one edge loop on the curve (top of the grove) but other than that, looks good. :thumbsup:

How's this?

Surrealist.
04-07-2008, 10:18 AM
No not that loop! :D

The other ones. On the top that make the crest of that channel, groove or whatever you call it. :)

That loop was holding the tight edge perfectly. You just have to many loops going over the top than you need to make the crest. LOL!

Sorry... I wasn't clear at all was I....

THREEL
04-07-2008, 10:34 AM
No not that loop! :D

The other ones. On the top that make the crest of that channel, groove or whatever you call it. :)

That loop was holding the tight edge perfectly. You just have to many loops going over the top than you need to make the crest. LOL!

Sorry... I wasn't clear at all was I....

Oops!

How 'bout this loop?

Surrealist.
04-07-2008, 11:22 AM
Here. Keep the ones in black. Get rid of the ones x'ed out. You call though. It should work but you might not like the result. Basically all you should need is the three to make that arch. It just depends on the model. Also it may mess up the roundness of the column.

THREEL
04-07-2008, 11:35 AM
We'll get it right one of this days!

How about this?

I left the result hilighted, so you can see how it loops back up.

tHANX!

Surrealist.
04-08-2008, 07:29 PM
Prefect. See how simple the polyflow is now?

At the bottom of your selection there are two triangles it looks like. You can merge those.

Nice job.

THREEL
04-08-2008, 09:56 PM
Prefect. See how simple the polyflow is now?

At the bottom of your selection there are two triangles it looks like. You can merge those.

Nice job.

tHANX Richard! How's it look, now? Close enough for government work. ;);)

Actually, those are 4-pt. polys. It happened as I was Beveling the groove inward, and then I Welded the adjacent points to get rid of the 4-pt. polygon in the center. I had thought about merging those 2 polys together before, but decided not to, because the end result would have made a 5-pt. poly. I didn't think about deleting the center point. That gave me 2 tris to merge into 1 quad.

Isn't :lwicon: cool?!

AL

Surrealist.
04-08-2008, 10:51 PM
Ah yes. Clean and simple. Ain't it grand? :thumbsup:

THREEL
04-08-2008, 11:02 PM
Ah yes. Clean and simple. Ain't it grand? :thumbsup:

Well, now I get to work on the rest of the building, improving texturing, and, oh yeah, aquiring building permits to construct next to Niagara Falls. :D

Thanks you so much, Richard!

AL

Surrealist.
04-08-2008, 11:06 PM
Ok Ok ok , sorry....not so fast.

He he he

OK look at this.

This will be the final finishing touch, for complete simplicity. If the top is too bumpy near that 5 star you can add an edge loop horizontal above around rhe circumference with bandsaw it as a buffer edge.

THREEL
04-08-2008, 11:46 PM
This will be the final finishing touch, for complete simplicity. If the top is too bumpy near that 5 star you can add an edge loop horizontal above around rhe circumference with bandsaw it as a buffer edge.

I just tried this. It really doesn't do anything to cosmetically enhance the column. My main concern now is that I see a little edginess from where the grooves meet the outer parts of the column. I think I can just tweek those edges on 1 of the groove's edges. Then, just array around and merge, after I get rid of the other 11 grooves of course.

Surrealist.
04-09-2008, 12:22 AM
Well it looks good. Great work all around. How many columns are you going to make? I was just trying to think of the leanest way to make it. That would also help with the little edges you are seeing I think as the edges would be a more even spread all around.

THREEL
04-09-2008, 10:58 AM
Well it looks good. Great work all around. How many columns are you going to make? I was just trying to think of the leanest way to make it. That would also help with the little edges you are seeing I think as the edges would be a more even spread all around.

tHANX again, Richard! At least 4. I might make more, if I change the design from the reference photo. Here are a couple of shots that show the change you describe in subpatched and non-subpatched mode.

Is this what you have in mind? It looks like it might have a little crease in the top line of the star this way, but it may not be noticable when rendered.

Surrealist.
04-09-2008, 07:58 PM
Exactly.

And you can put a buffer edge at the top if you want. But if the render looks OK then I guess that's it. And gain, this is your call, if you see too many bumps. But if the render works then you are in. This is about as lean as you can get away with.

I hope you learned a little something about simple polyflow. :)

THREEL
04-10-2008, 03:34 AM
I hope you learned a little something about simple polyflow.

I had hoped that I had learned something about poly flow before on other projects that I have seeked advice for here. ;) But, I know there is always room to grow. :thumbsup:

I think this last batch of renovations helped get rid of most of the edginess between the transition from groove to flat.

This render is a PLD 17 pass saved as a JPEG.

tHANX, Richard, for helping me make my columns leaner. It helps the model to look better & render faster.

AL

Surrealist.
04-10-2008, 03:59 AM
Yeah man. I know. I feel the same way. Always looking to improve. Well, we certainly reduced a boat load of polys on this didn't we?

It looks great and I really like what you did with the top.

Look forward to what you'll be doing with the rest of it.