Interior Rendering

[Djordje]

IvanG wrote:
C&C please

Stop posting photographs ...

[stefan]

If you do want a comment, I don't like such sharp renderings. I think a bit more filtering in the rendering (or in Photoshop) can increase the realism.

I think you are making wonderfull renderings, but I think you shoul try some depth-of-field or at least some blurring too. I am always surprised to see still images from movies: they are never sharp & crisp, yet they seem very photorealistic.

Can you give it a try? If you still like the sharper version more, then by all means, keep using it. It's one of those "taste"-things, I guess.

[stefan]

This is a small photoshop treatment.
You don't have to like it 😉

[Anonymous]

Stop posting photographs ... .) thanks Djordje



Stefan i not like that result i not have time for tests and i make render setting on PRIMAVISTA lights DOF ....... Etc.. Primavista

the render is crash i rendered IRD map first after that i rendered Cropping and re panting and many manipulating on PS for get something Middle .(((((

you have reason Stefan the image have too many problems

but for SHARPENS they come wit reseizing i rendered on 6000x resolution for PRINT and for posting on net i resize the image and is going blurry for that i make SHARPNESS in Photo Shop and that image is just for WEB show compresion ... etc....

[stefan]

IvanG wrote:
Stop posting photographs ... .) thanks Djordje



Stefan i not like that result i not have time for tests and i make render setting on PRIMAVISTA lights DOF ....... Etc.. Primavista

the render is crash i rendered IRD map first after that i rendered Cropping and re panting and many manipulating on PS for get something Middle .(((((

you have reason Stefan the image have too many problems

but for SHARPENS they come wit reseizing i rendered on 6000x resolution for PRINT and for posting on net i resize the image and is going blurry for that i make SHARPNESS in Photo Shop and that image is just for WEB show compresion ... etc....

No problem. You are the only one that can judge on this, so you decide what you like best.
It is a very nice rendering, with lots of attention to detail. Very good.
6000x resolution? I don't think I ever rendered higher then 3200 pixels...

[Djordje]

IvanG wrote:
but for SHARPENS they come wit reseizing i rendered on 6000x resolution for PRINT and for posting on net i resize the image and is going blurry for that i make SHARPNESS in Photo Shop and that image is just for WEB show compresion ... etc....

Not that.

Stefan is referring to depth of field, and atmospheric blurring. All the exterior renderings I have seen (mine included) have one basic flaw - there is no atmosphere, it is rendered in vaccum, as the stuff kilometers away is as sharp as the stuff in the foreground.

For the interiors, especially low lit as the poste one, there is almost no waya photograph can be as sharp. The aperture defines the depth of field (a range where something in a photo is sharp), and other influencing elements are focal distance of the lens, quality of the lens, and the lighting.

In the low light interior, if you use the high aperture (8 or 11), you have to use nog exposure. Therefore the light will blur, as it will "burn" the lit areas, if you want the shadows lit. And so on ... let's not make this a photography forum

[Djordje]

stefan wrote:
6000x resolution? I don't think I ever rendered higher then 3200 pixels...

Art•Lantis does 10000 easily ... guess how do I know

[stefan]

No matter what I said earlier, your renderings are of a very high level!

Did you enter some examples for the second Exposé issue? (check Ballistic Publishing). And there is a similar magazine in the making for Discreet applications, called Elemental.

I think with the level of your renderings you could be included.

---

Yes, Depth of Field can take forever to render.

If you render out a Z-buffer pass, you can blur the image in Photoshop, using the greyscale depth-buffer as a mask. Can be tweaked almost in realtime and doesn't take (much) longer to render then without depth-of-field.

--> I'll keep it in mind when I ever find the time to make the ArchiCAD -> max conversion tutorial.