Improvements on photoreal?

[mtbmarsh]

Hey guys,

This is my first attempt at a photoreal style image. It seems to be lacking in many areas and I'm having trouble identifying the problems...
I would love some comments and critiques, the harsher the better!

[mtbmarsh]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

[dalomar_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

I guess I have some general comments about achieving photo realism and a few specific pointers about your image.

In general I've noticed that there are three concepts that go along way to helping images appear photorealistic; Context, irregularity, and texture. Context is very important because it makes the subject matter "belong". In the case of a building it may be people and cars and other buildings. In the case of a room it may be little nic-nacs here and there. All of those things do wonders for making images look more natural.

Irregularity is another important thing because it makes things unique. Take for instance a glass office building. In theory the glass on a building like that should be very regular, but in the real world each pane of glass may have a slightly different orientation (maybe tilted in or to one side or something) or have a slightly different shape (concave, convex or wavy). I'm not saying that you need to make every pane of glass, but it probably wouldn't take long to make 3-4 and place them where you need them. For things like copying objects, maybe adding a little variance to their orientation will help without the need for extra modeling.

Texture is really important for getting individual object to look more realistic. In this case I'm referring to the texture of the surface and how that can change the appearance of the material. Many times materials look very flat and applying texture to the surface can help that allot. You can think of texture as using a bump map or displacement, but also think of texture as having glossy reflection as this simulates very fine surface texture.

All that being said I think that allot of whats missing in your image is context. Add people, buildings, and other stuff and it will help quite a bit. Think about this not only from the outside of the building, but from the inside as well. Those store fronts have something going on inside them and thats a good thing to see. The sky too is also a good way to add some context as it shows up in the reflections of the windows. Find an hdr of a nice sky and that will help.

Adding some irregularity within the awnings and the windows will help too. Right now they look kind of flat (maybe due to the sky), so that could use some tweeking. Maybe a bit of photoshop work to get rid of some of the repeating in the brick might help as well. As far as texture I think your fine at this scale, but if you are going to do any closer shots its something that you should definitely pay attention to. Hope this helps, and keep at it. I know this is a wip image, so I try to fit in as much as you can.

[SreckoM]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Context and irregularity are two most important things, as dalomar said. Also try to bevel edges, mainly if you want to do some closeups.
If you use Photoshop or similiar software, for some postwork, you can add some dirts by adding picture with some noise on it, above rendered picture, then 'multiply' it or 'Add', erase parts you don't need, do some opacity etc. In that way you can add some quick dirt or details on your rendered image without rendering or playing with textures, again.

As always sorry for my bad English.

[dcauldwell_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

SreckoM

I couldn't help reading your response, and I am also interested in 'dirt'. I see that programmes like 3dmax etc will allow you to add 'dirt' to you scene, but I havn't heard of anyone doing it using Rhino (or sketchup(thats me!)).

I can understand about adding a layer over the image in photoshop, but can you elaborate a little on how to create the 'picture with noise on it' - maybe an example?

Thanks

David

[SreckoM]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Use textures like rust metal, some can be found here - http://mayang.com/textures/Metal/htm...res/index.html.
This technique is taken form Matte Painting. For me it is time saving and much flexible than using dirt shaders. Even if it is postwork it really could give more realism to your picture if it is done properly.
Sorry for late response but I forgot that I posted something here.

[mtbmarsh]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Cool, thanks for looking at this...
I haven't done anything post-production yet. Can anybody comment on the actual rendering? Improvements in Vray/Rhino?

Thanks

[Micha_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Improvements? I would try to avoid the white, burned out ground material and use a less intensiv sun (for example set env texture multiplier at 4 (sky is 4 times brighter) and sun intensity at 0.25).

My experience: try to show much shadowed areas, so that the GI effect is visible. For example direct sun light at one of the house sides only. You can see it at the right roof objects - a photoreal looking GI effect with bounced lighting.

Did you use a bump map for the brick walls?

[dcauldwell_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

And then . . .
If you have a photograph of the actual site, then insert you model into that photograph, that will put it in context, and maybe you will be able to merge in actual cars, people etc.
Here is an example (although on a different scale!) http://www.asgvis.com/index.php?opti...12002#msg12002
Or you may be going for the photo of a virtual model, in which case it just needs sitting on a virtual 'baseboard'.

Regards
David

[mtbmarsh]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

I'm using a physical camera. It seems as if the GI (skylight) is too intense even set at one. I would like to lighten the underside of the main roof canopy, but increasing GI just blows out the other side of the building, even though the sun is shining primarily on the side facing the camera. I would like to get nice dark tones on the other side, and light, morning type color in the overall rendering.

[mtbmarsh]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

alright guys, here's what seems to be close to a final...critiques welcome!

[Micha_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Not bad. In this case, the sun intensity of the first looks more real, maybe something between is good.
Also, you could add a vignetting effect per physical cam or postwork.
The background houses are to blury. The difference between the model and the background image blur is to high.
And I would try to adjust the image so, that the brightest parts are at value 255. Best you disable "clamp output" and use the frame buffer controls.

EDIT: ... I could no resist and have done some postwork.

[dcauldwell_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

Wow! This really has come on a bundle.
The new viewpoint is excellent - much more natural. I agree with Micha about the blurry background, however the render does sit in its context very well. I like the motion blur on the car. Is the car from a site photograph or is it photoshop'd in? You may need some better tarmac - the tarmac in the render is a bit pristine!

Excellent work.

[mtbmarsh]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

The car is P'shopped. I made the background a bit less blurry, added a bit of vignetting. Still considering adding a lens flare, kind of corny, but the clients may be wow'd by something so simple...
Ya, the tarmac isn't so good, any suggestions?

[dcauldwell_cg]

Re: Improvements on photoreal?

I don't know if you can do anything with it but try this tarmac
http://www.cgtextures.com/texview.ph...fdfa170227d64d

Good luck