Tweet
Many thanks VKNT !!!
julien
julien
-
-
-
great pics, thanx!AlessandroComment
-
-
very generous of you mate.....cheersComment
-
great....
thank u!Comment
-
thanks very much
Comment
-
just what i was looking for
)))) right on time ....thank you ....let me know what you need i will have a look through my stuff
cheers martinComment
-
-
thanks a lot.Comment
-
As I mentioned at the start of the topic, I'm in the proces of creating high-res skies, well still investigating all sorts of techniques in fact.
I plan to sell the best when they are ready (it's gonna take some time so I have no deadline in mind)
What I would like to know, is what you guys expect from a top-quality sky?
1. resolution
now at 15000px width
how much is enough? When I have my new camera, this could normally be raised to 20.000px wide
2. horizon
as they are now, fair enough? Or should they be trimmed?
3. fileformat
.png (around 80-100mb)? I think this is the preferred format, because of lossless compression.
4. 16bit?
It should be possible to shoot a sky with 3exposures (using bracketing) and stitch it as .hdr format. I couldn't try this yet because my camera doesn't support exposure bracketing in Manualmode. This should mean you have more control over the exposure.
5. no sun?
someone mentioned skies are more usable when there's no sun in it. Pretty hard to make such a sky, but I can try.
Maybe other things I didn't think of...Comment
-
what a wonderful share VKNT - thank you so much
let us all know when a pack is ready, i'll be buying for sure!
as for your questions, the resolution, fileformat and horizon are fine by me, good HDR's would be incredible! i'd pay a lot more for that - as for the sun i'd actually prefer the sun to be there...
great work and thanks again!Comment
-
Hi VKNT,
The skies look good, especially 0023. But when i view them at 100% i can see a lot of pixelartifacts, is this because of the jpg compression?
See this image:
If this is also visible in the skies you want to sell they would be useless to us, we get a lot of comments on this with the skies we use now so if we were to buy this skiepack these artifacts should not be there.
Higher resolution is always better for us.
I think the horizon is fine.
png would be great, regarding the issue above.
no sun would the way to go for us.
Looking forward to your answer.
ErikA full render queu is a thing of beauty !Comment
-
Thankyou for the feedback.
There are several reasons for this.
1. original photo.
The original photos have some noise. Especially in the darker areas.
Crop of original .jpeg
http://www.vknt.be/forum_assets/chao...23-01-Crop.jpg
The camera I use now is a Canon S3. Good camera, but not good enough. (IQ + no exposure bracketing in ManualMode)
So I'm looking out for a dSLR (probably Canon 40D)
Using a 40D will result in sharper images, no noise and higher resolution.
2. mapping
At the top everything is stretched, this is caused by the equirectangular mapping.
The best way to judge the image quality of a panoramasky is to look at it with a panoviewer such as DevalVR.
http://www.devalvr.com/paginas/productos/index.html
Freeware, no install.
3. jpeg compression
The panorama is saved using minimal compression but there's always some quality loss ofcourse. Using .png will fix this.
So overall, image quality will certainly improve when I start using a dSLR but for basic usage I don't think this is a problem.
I gonna do some tests when I have the time. What is the resolution you normally use for renders?Comment
Comment