|
|
Tires
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Tires // Work in Progress
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 27, 2008, 12:17am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
The door helps a lot with making the scene feel like it's actually inside a building. You'll want to round the edges on that doorframe (also check some photo references and make sure that's how they look) and move the door away from the frame a bit to create a gap. Adding a doorjam to the doorframe will make it so you don't have the background showing through.
Also with the colors, you should tone down the saturation (more grey, less red or blue) and darken them some. The blues and reds are rather primary and make the scene somewhat cartoony in color intensity.
I like the tire charts, but I think they may be a bit too white. Try using a light gray or light creamy color for the background. The one above the tool box may be too centered, perhaps moving it slightly up and too the left.
I think the airhose could be a little bit larger than it is now, but I think you were right to scale it down. Unfortunately that is now leaving a gap for the compressor... ;) You could move the air hose down and put a drill case next to it...
Making good progress on this one, keep in mind there's always more to do in a scene like this, so at some point you have to just call it "done". :D |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 27, 2008, 6:36am
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
Looking much better, that door really adds to the scene. Apart from the lino floor texture and the colour issues Jacks mentioned there are two things that are instantly noticeable. The lesser of the two is the hose reel and tool chest have no scratches, dings or marks which they would have as the dirty wheel, tyre wrench and rag indicate it's not a 'showroom' garage. The bigger issue is with the placement of the calendar and charts. Look at the scale, they're practically at waist height, they just wouldn't be that low unless the garage is staffed by oompah-loompas?
Are you planning to use HDRI in the render? That'd make a big difference. Keep on keeping on, it's getting better all the time. |
Post by kena // Mar 27, 2008, 3:49pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
To rise the informational posters, I had to change my angle. Textures are always my weak point.
11728 |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 27, 2008, 4:14pm
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
That looks a lot better. The calendar could still be raised up a bit though (a bit higher than the left chart would seem about right) and, as an observational point, such calendars are usually pic at top, dates at bottom. Looking forward to seeing it with the door and frame are finished.
Regarding the camera angle, it may not have been necessary to change it (though this new one works nicely). It is not necessary to always have everything perfectly in shot, especially in pictures such as this. Imagine taking a photograph in a garage, you're never going to have everything perfectly in frame, there will always be something that is only partly included. Applying this in renders only adds to the realism. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 27, 2008, 5:00pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
I agree with WWotW. Also I think you went a little too dark a gray on the charts. I was thinking more of an off-white (something like R247,G248,B246). ;)
The door color is a bit lavender. Maybe a burgundy (say R125, G30, B54) or a blue in the (R39, G59, B146) range would do the trick.
Also you may want to up your area light samples to a value like 150 or so. |
Post by kena // Mar 27, 2008, 5:36pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
can't do that much with the background c olor of the charts... here is an example
They are bump files, not a background that got written on ;)
11729
I've been changing the reflectance to get the "gray" color to them. It's kinda limited.
11730 |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 27, 2008, 5:59pm
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
can't do that much with the background c olor of the charts
Nonsense. Just change the base colour in your 2D image software (photoshop, paint shop pro, gimp, whatever). Two examples below. Two clicks to change (select base colour, fill with new colour) - took seconds.
I've been changing the reflectance to get the "gray" color to them. It's kinda limited.
And there in probably lies the problem. Change the reflectance shader to change the reflectance, not the colour. To give it the correct laminated look you should set your chart up with a matt reflectance like paper and put a lightly wrinkled transparent plane over the top. Give the plane a light relfectance and fiddle with the IOR ot suit. Even if your not using it for lighting an HDRI reflectance or simple skydome will really bring it to life providing the variance of reflections the laminate needs.
1173111732 |
Post by spacekdet // Mar 27, 2008, 6:17pm
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
There's something about the relative scale of things that's a little hinky here.
Take the cinderblock texture. Cinderblocks are generally 8X8X16 inches. According to the texture on the wall, 7.5 blocks X 8 inches each= 60 inches...that would make your door about 5 feet tall. Watch your head!
The calendar looks huge in comparison to the tires, yet the toolbox looks short compared to the doorhandle.
Eyeballing things will only get you so far... trust me, I've done it plenty myself, but at some point you have to open up the object info panel (and break out your tape measure) and start checking actual dimensions.
The added benefit is that the lighting will look 'right' in a correctly scaled scene.
<EDIT> One other thing...mount that hose reel on the wall, up off the floor! |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 27, 2008, 7:01pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
/Agree with spacekdet and WWotW. I threw the tire chart into Gimp for some quicky dirtying up. Might have overdone the smudges a bit, but I resisted the temptation to add coffee stains. ;)
11733
Dirtying up textures is half the fun and will make your images look a lot more organic. :) |
Post by kena // Mar 27, 2008, 8:28pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
...and, as an observational point, such calendars are usually pic at top, dates at bottom. ....
sorry... missed this one.
Yes, the calendar is oversized and the picture is at the bottom. I have a calendar at work that is that way. I like it. My pictures are of scenic houses, but still. the concept is there. My co-worker has a Calendar that is in the shape of an octagon! Don't like it though, as the sides tend to curl with time.
There's something about the relative scale of things that's a little hinky here.
Take the cinderblock texture. Cinderblocks are generally 8X8X16 inches. According to the texture on the wall, 7.5 blocks X 8 inches each= 60 inches...that would make your door about 5 feet tall. Watch your head!
The calendar looks huge in comparison to the tires, yet the toolbox looks short compared to the doorhandle.
Eyeballing things will only get you so far... trust me, I've done it plenty myself, but at some point you have to open up the object info panel (and break out your tape measure) and start checking actual dimensions.
The added benefit is that the lighting will look 'right' in a correctly scaled scene.
<EDIT> One other thing...mount that hose reel on the wall, up off the floor!
Measuring the tires on my truck - 4 of them come to the bottom of my doorknob. When I moved the doorknob to that hight, it made it look too short, so in this scene, it is an extra doorknob higher.
Working on the cinderblocks, but the tool box is short. That local place near me has 3 sizes... this small one is the one that they roll all over the place depending on where they are working. It's short, and the center of gravity is low making it safe to push about without tipping over. so they say, but I've seen them fling it about to see how far it will go ;) |
Post by W!ZARD // Mar 27, 2008, 8:46pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Looking better all the time. I've not much to add to what Jack and Kate have said but I do want to compliment you for sticking with this and trying the different suggestions.
I'd also like to suggest that you learn a bit more about layered textures - whether you layer them in LW or in an external app like the GIMP. Tweaking the textures with layers is one of my favourite bits of creating a scene and given your attention to detail I'm sure you'll get the hang of it easily enough.
Modeling a good model is a satisfying thing but taking a texture and using it as the base for something completely original is also a satisfying thing.
If you have a camera you can take your own texture pics or else grab some of the many freebies on the net, layer it up with grunge and noise and blurs and what-have-you's and your set!
Good luck and keep pushing it! |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 28, 2008, 4:05am
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
Oh, forgot to say, on the calendar, the curl in the top section should be less prominent than the bottom one as the weight of the bottom section would pull it down, straightening it out more than it is here. |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 5:23am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
OK fixed the cinder blocks. and flattened the top part of the calendar.
11734 |
Post by 3dfrog // Mar 28, 2008, 7:21am
|
3dfrog
Total Posts: 1225
|
wow it was really great to see this in progress. It looks great kena. great work. |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 28, 2008, 7:43am
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
Looking much better. Raise up the calendar (placing the nail into the mortar rather than a brick), finish the door frame and you might just be home and dry. Unless I can convince you to change the linoleum floor covering? :-) |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 10:51am
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
nope - the speckle stays. ;) I knew there was something wrong with that calendar. |
Post by Changa // Mar 28, 2008, 12:17pm
|
Changa
Total Posts: 187
|
Looks better from picture to picture. Time to play with lighting:) It seems that the local light is stright above the tool box. Try to move it closer to the camera or use area light. I expect more shade in the corner. |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 5:20pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
There is no local light.
There are two area lights shaped like long overheads and one infinite light peeking in through the front. All lights are using mapped shadows.
One light is just in front and above the tool chest and the other one is closer to the front on the other side of the door.
11742
so, the shadows are exactly as I wanted them to be. I had no desire to have deep shadows in that corner.
I've got the lights at 28 feet above, which is a nice tall ceiling... I didn't like the 10 foot ceiling at all... you got too much of a implied claustrophobia. The ceiling at my local is at 40 feet in the garage, but I didn't like that height either, so I split the difference.
Here is the scene without the infinite light.
we miss the extra shadow across the single tire on the floor - It took me an hour to get that there and I'm fond of it., so this version just won't happen.
11743
Leave the infinite light and move the ceiling lights so that the one nearest the tool chest is over the door....
11744
The corner looks washed out, not deeper shadows.
See... I DID pay attention to the lights this time. :D |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 6:02pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
OK latest update.. Turned the door frame into a "door frame". I'm tempted to put an oil pit in... a few more rags... an impact drill.... etc... etc... etc...
But really... This picture is about the Tires I modeled, so I think I'm almost done with this one.
11745 |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 6:13pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Hi Kena,
I agree, I think you're almost done on this one.
Few things left to check:
1.) I don't like the washed out kinda speckling effect on the tool chest.
2.) Make sure luminance/ambient is set to zero for your walls. Also they seems like they are slightly reflective, cinderblock is generally not reflective unless it's been painted -- in which case I'd probably use specular (faked reflection from the light source) instead of reflection anyway.
3.) You may want to photo source the door frame. It the door jamb seems a bit broad and not set deep enough into the frame. Alternately you could put the door on this side of the doorjamb and not worry about it. ;)
Edit:
Oh yeah, and use a better compression setting for you JPGs. TrueSpace renders JPGs with WAY too high compression. It's better to render out as PNG then convert it to JPG in your paint program after you post process it. Why spend all the time waiting on a high quality render then output it as an overly compressed JPG....:confused: I usually use a compression setting of quality 90 when saving JPGs. |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 6:27pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
Hi Kena,
I agree, I think you're almost done on this one.
Few things left to check:
1.) I don't like the washed out kinda speckling effect on the tool chest.
2.) Make sure luminance/ambient is set to zero for your walls. Also they seems like they are slightly reflective, cinderblock is generally not reflective unless it's been painted -- in which case I'd probably use specular (faked reflection from the light source) instead of reflection anyway.
3.) You may want to photo source the door frame. It the door jamb seems a bit broad and not set deep enough into the frame. Alternately you could put the door on this side of the doorjamb and not worry about it. ;)
Edit:
Oh yeah, and use a better compression setting for you JPGs. TrueSpace renders JPGs with WAY too high compression. It's better to render out as PNG then convert it to JPG in your paint program after you post process it. Why spend all the time waiting on a high quality render then output it as an overly compressed JPG....:confused: I usually use a compression setting of quality 90 when saving JPGs.
1) I agree... I will be working with fixing textures from this point on until they get the way I like them. This is a scratched metal surface layer, but It's not working the way I want at this time.. will take some fiddeling.
2) I will check the settings, but I think I have them set to matt...
3) The door frame type is confusing you here... It's one of those swing both way things, not a door stop kind.
here is the cross-section for that side of the door minus the rounding
11746
And I render to Jpg, then bring it up in Windows paint and save it to remove the compression problems. I tried the png to Jpg with 70 - 80 and 90%, but didn't like the results.
Doing it this way takes a 380kb file and makes it 60 to 87 kb depending on the colors used. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 6:33pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Kena, if you save a JPG twice you get double the loss from compression... :(
Did you mean you render it as a BMP then convert it to a JPG?
I highly recommend GIMP. It takes a bit of getting used to interface-wise, but it is free and a full featured paint/photo editing program:
http://www.gimp.org/ |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 6:41pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
no, I save it as jpg, open it using windows Paint, then save it. as Jpg.
Here you go as comparrison....
Jpg to windows paint to jpg 384 kb to 64 kb
11747
png to jpg using Gimp (@ 90%) 595 kb to 108 kb
11748
On my PC, I can see no real difference in the look of the file, yet the one I did in Windows Paint is smaller kb.
EDIT: using jpg on V-ray the file is already small, so I don't have to do it then. :D |
Post by TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb // Mar 28, 2008, 6:56pm
|
TheWickedWitchOfTheWeb
Total Posts: 858
|
JPG should only be used as the final version, never, ever as a starting point. Your render should be in a lossless format (tga, png, etc), you should do any post processing, cropping and so on and THEN (and only then) save as a jpg (with a quality setting between 80 - 100).
Jpg causes artefacts that are there for good. The more you re-save a jpg as a jpg the more artifacts you introduce and the quality drops and drops.
Don't sacrifice image quality for the sake of a few k or even Mb's. It's not like the good old days where you had to ensure that everything fitted on a 1.44Mb floppy. |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 7:00pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
Yet, if you look at my two pictures above, there is no improvement of quality using the lossless format to render with. That was my point. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 7:12pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Ack!! Kena JPG is a lossy compression method, that means that it destroys data in the image *each* time you save to it. :(:(
JPG is great for getting file size down for distributing a finished image on the web, but you should always use a non-lossy compression method for originals and files you are still working on. Examples of non-lossy formats are: PNG, TIFF, TGA, BMP, XCF, PSD.
Here's an example. I created a colored grid. I saved it as JPG then loaded it back in and resized it to 5x normal size so the damage would be easier to see:
Original image (at 5x):
11750
JPG image (at 5x):
11752 |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 7:23pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Also Kena, if you look at the two images you provide above there is a significant degradation in the first image around the tire charts that is less bad in the 2nd one.
JPG -> JPG
11753
PNG->JPG
11754
It's also apparent around the grid of the calendar... :( |
Post by kena // Mar 28, 2008, 8:11pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
I'm going to have to take you guy's word for it.
I'm half blind and really don't see the difference.
@Jack... I see the difference in your two colored grids - the second one has muted colors to it, but I don't understand what you did. They both say "(at 5x):"
and they are both .png files.
so I would assume that you took a .png image at 5x and then converted ti to jpg at 5x, then converted again to png? I could see where 3 conversions would degrade the picture.
Your second examples are also .png files, but they appear to be blown-up's of my original .jpg files. When I zoom in on them, I get the degradation you got in the same format. but then, I would not normally enlarge a finished image.. I might reduce the physical size, but I normally keep my images at 600x800 unless I use them for my windows background, then I render them the same resolution I have my pc set for.
and for post-processing, I DO render in .png - modify, then save as jpg. but if I do not post-process. I see no need for it, since my eyes just cannot see the difference. I see color very well, just not resolution. so naturally, when I say that I do not see a significant difference, I'm telling the truth.
Here is your original .png grid
11755
Here, I've loaded the .png into Paint and saved it as .jpg
11756
Then I loaded THAT into paint and saved it as a different .jpg
11758
And here I loaded it into Gimp, and saved it as a .jpg at 90% quality
11757
I cannot replicate your example above that I can tell.
And I really do want to understand! |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 8:24pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Sorry, didn't explain the process I used clearly. I created the image at 64x64 pixels. Saved one as JPG and one as PNG. (Note: I used a value of 60 for the JPG to exaggerate the effect.) Reloaded them, then resized to 320x320 using no interpolation on the scaling so that it wouldn't smooth the pixels when scaling it. I then saved them both out as PNGs to upload to the forum. The idea is to blow them up to see what they look like at the pixel level. ;) Keep in mind that saving as PNG does not change the image -- that's the advantage of using PNG format.
JPG format does the worst on text and images that have abrupt color changes. However on photographs which have more natural progressions of color JPG format does a great job and gives a high quality image at very small file size, but it's still important to remember that data and image quality are always lost when saving as a JPG and the loss is cumulative each time the file is resaved as a JPG. The reason for this has to do with the math behind the JPG format. It divides the image up into buckets (like VRay does) then fits the pixels within each bucket to a mathematical curve. Then stores the coefficients for the curve instead of the image data. The curve is a best fit approximation so where the curve doesn't fit as well, image data is changed such that visible artifacts appear.
Also if you blow up the examples you made of my examples, you will see the degradation that I'm talking about, especially at the edges of the color changes. Though at quality 90 the degradation is relatively slight. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Mar 28, 2008, 8:46pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Here's an example of JPG artifacts on black & white text:
Original (5x):
11759
after JPG compression at quality 60 (5x):
11760 |
|
