Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
one hump or two
Hey, thanks a lot - having a lot of fun exploring the many options :)
No problems at all with piggie-backing browser thieves, such as is becoming quite common with freeware.
I'm running a bit late, so the composition and lighting could be better, but here it is anyway:
May the 4th be with you! :coolsmile:
Love it... except I'm not too nuts over the red circle from the lens flare.
The texture on the planet looks really cool! Aside from that circle, I like the lighting. I think it's a really nice render.
As instructed, I used the fourth. It worked! But now I'm keeping a sharp lookout for the revenge of the fifth!
Cool render, bigh... is that A3? I like the way you have the dark gray scale one in between... and the bizarre camel.. or rather... the bizarre texture on the camel. I like colorful... and I like A3, it seems. Perhaps I should pull mine off the shelf and mess around a bit.
Love that top hat!!! ;)
That red circle - assuming it's lens flare - is too square on. Makes it look like a roundel: some kind of corporate logo, rather than an optics artefact imho. But love the planet and the cloud asteroid belt. And the way the light catches on the Falcon is great.
Yeah, not my favorite either. It looked better in the preview, but in the finished render- Meh. I didn't have time to do another one. I had wanted to do it earlier in the day, but I had some septic tank issues I had to deal with and will still have to deal with this coming weekend. :sick:
I think you need to sort out your priorities. Renders are always more important that septic tank issues! What's the matter with you?!!! LOL
thank you
its Genesis turned into A3
When you're as full of "it" as I am, the septic tank takes all the priority. ;-)
When you're as full of "it" as I am, the septic tank takes all the priority. ;-)
use rid x
use rid xLOL! Right!
...and then render it! :ahhh:
use rid x
Yeah. That'll fix the problem, because I never try the easier route first. ;-P Besides I love standing up to my ankles in shitwater shoving 80 ft. of a roto-rooter snake up a small pipe to chew up roots and other less pleasant blockages.
UG see pretty fish - UG eat :-P
OK, so my buddies say it's cheating :)
But so much fun!
and that's what counts !
What's the cheating part?
Either way, bigh and Roygee, cool pics! Ug... I weeewy wike vat Ogaaa fing.
Well, if they want a different perspective of the same scene, or whatever, they have to go out in the cold wind for a few hours and do another pic. I just move a few things around, change focus, etc. in the comfort of my study.
Change from photoreal to inksketch, watercolour, whatever, with a few moves of some sliders:)
What they forget is that I had to learn the software and make the props!
I was at a photographic presentation the other day where the artist explained all the darkroom tricks to get her results, then had a big down on digital photographers who used software to get their effects - said it was no-talent cheating:)
Sounds like she's going to be SOL when they stop making chemical film.
Ahhh... so not coming from other 3d render artists... gotcha!
What?!!! Stop making chemical film? That would make a few people rather upset. But I suppose... inevitability is just that.
When photographers and cinematographers rip on digital studios, I can see their point... but only to a certain degree. But I would never wish that someone would eventually be taking their toys away. That's too bad.
Sounds like she was ripping on 2D digital photographers as well. Maybe she feels threatened that digital photography has democratized photography and allowed people with digital cameras the freedom to experiment. In the past, for complex photographic effects you needed a fancy camera, dark room, specialized equipment and a rather esoteric knowledge of the developing process. With digital photography, you no longer have to worry about the expense of film, so you are free to experiment, you no longer have to send your film out for developing to a place where you have no creative control, and while a nice camera with interchangeable lenses would be ideal, it is no longer the barrier to entry for a casual photographer that it once was.
"Film" users (the true believers, I mean) dislike digital imaging over their traditional methods. I never really knew this, being a simple little guy in a far off magical land. But it was brought to my attention several times watching documentary type stuff over the last few years.
Being a Star Wars nut, I watch a lot of 'behind the scenes' footage whenever I can, as I am totally keen on ideas for sound and visual effects, animation and all relevant material. Many cinematographers were highly against digital footage, digital effects, etc., and likely still are. I'm sure that Jeremy Birn was caught in the middle many times, as his career was smack dab in the middle of that battle.
It's not the effects I don't like in the last trilogy, it's the story and some of the casting. The effects are top notch. It's not just still photography that has been democratized by the convergence of digital "film."
When I first got my Mac and worked with digital video, I was amazed at how easy it was to add other digital formats to the mix and manipulate them in the video editor. I was doing stuff back in the late '90s and early 2000s that many high end TV shows could do. Not to the same level of quality mind you. I did have the software tools to do it, just not good cameras or the skill set.
On the big screen at my local fleapit, you can definitely see the pixels on a 2K digital-shot movie (unless you sit right at the back). And anything with text & graphics (or subtitles) looks really ragged, since they don't often seem to bother antialiasing it. So from that standpoint I definitely prefer film.
At home on my 42" telly, I can't tell the difference.
I haven't seen the 4K version of The Hobbit (no 4K screens anywhere close by), but by all accounts, it got complaints that it was "too video-like"
As for still photography, no doubt there are still a few glass plate users who are down on these cheaters using 35mm...
I can certainly see that in the early days of digital imaging, the technology and workflow were less refined, and the resulting images had some scope for improvement. But it was (still is, arguably) a fledgeling technology that's still getting better year over year, so I really don't think that can be held against it. especially not by proponents of a chemical process that's had more than 100 years head start.
Hmmm.... I saw The Hobbit at a theater with digital projection and stadium style seating, but I don't think it was 4K. As I recall there were only two 4K theaters in the state. I didn't notice jaggies or other artifacts. Then again, I may have been distracted from a bad picture by the bad picture. ;-)
Portrait of a Selfie
You can see the actual selfie that she's taking here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/40868/P120/#604385 (Yes, it's the same scene I was trying to get the dynamic hair working on. I abandoned that in the end for an off the shelf hair, since I was just going round and round in circles, getting nowhere)
BTW, anyone know why the Streets of Asia scenery textures have come out so grainy? Makes it look like a half-done Reality render! The water looks particularly bad - not at all like the promos. Lighting is just sun + realistic skies.
It may be that the bump intensity needs to be lowered.
Thanks EP. That's what I like about this forum - you guys come up with answers to problems that I wouldn't have even thought about - I was looking for noise multipliers and all sorts. It didn't even occur to me to look at bump - multiplier was set to 500%!!
These are just quickie renders with GI turned off (the full renders take a couple of hours) Already there's considerable improvement. Same goes for the actual selfie too.
Glad I could help! :)
For what it's worth, I've found with Poser style stuff, the big things that need tweaking are the Highlight/Shininess, multipliers in the color channel and the bump channel.
Cool freaking pictures, Tim