mlucky: Nice ones. The edge of the shadows on the ground gets bright on both renders which makes them look off.
andRo.: cool ones too but don't save with 16 bit's per channel for display purposes. The 8MB filesize would be reduced to 1.73MB as a regular 24bit image and even Superman wouldn't be able to see the difference by just looking at them.
This is what I mean (it's not exact science but close enough). I kept the PNG in 16 bit's per channel, but could just as well have converted it to 8 before uploading it.
I can understand the temptation of using bigger numbers and thinking that would lead to better quality - but its misguided belief. I'm beginning to notice more and more people post renders (including on this forum) in 16 bit's per channel, and I think Vista and Win 7 could be big reasons behind this new trend.
Vista and Windows 7 store wallpapers in Jpeg with a high compression on top of that. Microsoft are the real noobs and should be castrated for this. I'm not talking out of an artistic point of view, but while harddrives only get larger and larger MS decided to compress images for us?? How many pics do they think an average user has or collects over time since filesize seems to be so vital to them?
It annoys me that some of my wallpapers take a big hit from this compression, but I'm not aware of any solution to this.... yet.
It's completely up to you and depends entirely on how serious you want to get about editing. If you just want to do few tweaks here and there then you'll be fine with 8bpc for a long time. If you want to save in best possible quality for editing somewhere in the future then go ahead and save them with 16bpc - but always make 8bpc copies when you want to show others. 16bpc is useful for editing and professional printing.
Thanks! I'm happy someone likes it, was not too sure about this outcome.
Maybe our 3D guys would be interested that I've used VRay. And tried an old good finalRender approach to fake effects in VRay - (less GI send, more affect reflections from same object, selfilluminating objects, etc...) Well, I have failed miserably. Time I've put into this extended into unacceptable hours of fight against VRay. He was fast in renders at least, faster GI than finalREnder, much faster blurry reflections, and outstanding vector motion blur speed too. Restricted in special effects, but really stands up to his legend in photorealistic images, especially architecture. (my typical job)
Not sure if I can recommend it for LFS renders, depends. Work with matte plates and compositing with real footage might be a pain for you.
At the other side, 1 click realistic renders is where VRay beats anything around. So if you just wanna take a car, throw a skin on it, set some dramatic camera angle and want a picture, go for it.
Yeah I was double-checking it in 3D model too. It's not touching. Colour of the tire and that of wing panel are almost the same...
Wheels are turning - rear fast - motion blurred, front only roll on the road, not powered - no motion blur. I was thinking if this is spot on. Maybe it can be realistic, but doesn't look convincing.
I am working on new environment for it, so I will look at these things too, thanks for critics!