Mtn House interiors

[OPEN_RANGE]

sheesh, always a gotcha. there is a little bit of railing behind the glass and, yep, that's not getting included in the alpha.

this will be a larger issue in the other view that shows a lot of geometry beyond the glass on outdoor patio.

so now question is can backplate be included in reflections, not affect window glass alpha, and still include geometry outside/beyond window glass.

I'm thinking just hiding the glass is the best thing for this particular project.

[chadstevens]

I've sent you another PM, there are ways around it but it's quite complicated, it involves multiple renders and masks

[OPEN_RANGE]

OK thanks. quite complicated, multi renders,masks, too much for me. just hiding the glass for this one. I have been playing with the lighting. I had my fill light at 50 and shutter speed 1/40.

Now trying fill light 7 and shutter 1/10. Getting some better look (I think) but sun highlight on floor and sofa back both gettign burned out. I'll post it later. gotta run out for the rest of the day.

thanks you so much!!

[OPEN_RANGE]

Updates. I think I had the fill light turned up so much that it was washing out the effect of the recess lights and other detail? Per above I lowered the fill light from multiplier 50 to 7. Then I slowed the shutter from 1/40 to 1.10. I think it looks better and the light on the walls and ceiling looks better?

The only thing I don't like is the burned out sofa back and sunlight on floor. The rendering is just as exported from VFB but also has curves adjustment layer to boost contrast.



So I tried compensating for those burned out areas by using Fusion (for the first time) with a Filmic tone mapper macro.

The version with the Fusion Filmic tone mapper is below. I like the way it helped the burned out areas, but not sure I like that it has also de-saturated the walls and seems to have lowered the overall contrast (I added the same curves adjustment layer as above to compensate).
>>EDIT<< Replaced with a 25% opacity layer of AO pass added.

[chadstevens]

This is looking much better already, the filmic version looks fantastic and far more natural.

You should try the multi-channel compositing technique so you can keep your window reflections.

Cheers.

[OPEN_RANGE]

Thanks Chad. Your comments and observations were a great help in improving this.

By multi channel compositing I guess you mean using render elements and then combining wth psd manager or rendering a multi channel exr and using something like proexr?

Even with that I don't know if I would be able to include window reflections. I have the glass hidden so I could show the backplate in the counter top reflections but also have alpha around the window openings.

Thanks again for all your help! I will post the other view soon.

[OPEN_RANGE]

Here is the other view. Used the filmic tone mapper on this one too. also used some dof.

[andybot_cg]

Your image is looking pretty nice, but the backplate in this last image looks like the perspective doesn't match at all. Looks like the picture is one where you are looking down on the town below, but your camera in the render is level.

[particlerealities]

Where can I find out more about the filmic tone mapper? Nice looking images, by the way.

[OPEN_RANGE]

Andybot, it may be that the baackplate,perspective is not an exact match but it is not too far off. The house is up on the hillside overlooking town. The neighboring house roof is visible past,the fireplace. That,s not far off of actual relationship. Most important was to show the ski runs nicely thru the open doors and window above... regardless of correct match.

Particlerealities, look above in this thread for a link to a video and also a link to a previous discussion by others on this forum regarding tone mapping.

Thank you both for your replies!

[chadstevens]

New camera view is looking much better, here are a couple of changes I'm going to suggest, some might just be personal preference whereas others I believe do need to be addressed as technically inaccurate.

1. Denoiser is too strong, it seems that it's getting rid of most of the detail in your textures.

2. TV is far too grey and diffuse, I'd suggest making the screen look more glass-ish and the bezel a black shiny plastic see here https://www.houzz.co.uk/photos/20993...ng-room-boston

3. Texture detail, most of the textures in the scene are only diffuse with default glossiness and refection colours applied, try to create glossiness and bump maps from the diffuse channel if you don't have dedicated ones already. These textures will break up the highlights and make everything appear much more grounded in realism.
You can see this quite easily in the dining room table and chairs, it looks like the most perfect piece of wood with no imperfections what so ever, if you add a bump and a glossiness maps along with some slight smudge textures and even consider finding higher resolution textures, you'll see everything come to life. Consider doing this for all the materials in the scene. Here is an example of a dining room table, take note of the texture: https://www.houzz.co.uk/photos/65263...salt-lake-city You can see that the texture on the pillars also break up the highlights in the image.

4.Backplate Perspective: Andybot is absolutely correct, the perspectives do not match up at all, which throws the image off quite a bit. I understand that this can be quite a difficult thing to change as finding a backplate that matches your camera exactly, bar taking a photo yourself, can be incredibly difficult. So it's up to you to decide if you'd like to find a better image that matches your perspective. Below is a rough illustration of the differences in perspective.



Again, sorry for the short novel

I hope this helps.

Cheers.

[OPEN_RANGE]

Thanks this is is all very helpful. I showed these to the architect and client yesterday and got a very positive and enthusiastic response. They want some minor tweak. Adjust look of fireplace stone and add flames, revise wall texture, revise/replace floor texture map. I think I can add some other refinements esp to materials as listed by Chad above.

Regarding backplate: I took the backplate photos and I was standing on the site in a location very similar to where the cameras are placed in the 3D scene. I would not claim an accurate or exact match... but that was not desired. What is most important to the client is that the ski run is visible thru the doors/window. The story they want to tell is that if you get up close to the windows or go out on the deck you will be overlooking the town with the ski area/ski runs beyond. In the view from the kitchen you are looking up an adjacent side canyon and alpine basin that feeds directly into town. It's what is continued to the left of the photo below and is also what you would see from this home site. The dining room view backplate is below.

[andybot_cg]

There's nothing wrong with your backplate itself, it's the positioning and the field of view matching your interior view. You can see in chadstevens markup the vanishing points between the two views are quite different. The backplate also seems to be wider angle than your interior view. If your position in the rendering was closer to the windows (as you just described) you'd see more of the town. Would it make sense to do two views of this interior where one is closer to the windows, and the other is what you have that shows more of the interior? You can't have both in one shot...

[OPEN_RANGE]

thank you andybot and you are 100% correct.

Backplate is two photos shot at 43mm focal length spliced together and then mapped to a plane of desired size in 3DS. Camera in 3DS is 26mm focal length

What you describe makes perfect sense to me, BUT... we discussed this at length and did view studies. The client wants to have both the most complete view of the room possible and the view of the ski area in one shot. They don't care in the least if it's not a perfect match. So, if that is what they want and they are happy then.....

Thanks again for your replies!

[andybot_cg]

The client wants to have both

LOL! Boy have I encountered that once or twice