|
|
Event study sample trueSpace 7.5 / Vray
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.
Event study sample trueSpace 7.5 / Vray // Image Gallery
Post by Emma // Apr 11, 2007, 11:19pm
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
In WIP forum I was triying to show DOF effect from new trueSpace 7.5 and new Vray. Since I had no experience with Vray before and am more the scripting guy just used simple scenery to show effects. Learned a lot than by all that feedback, thanks for that! Then Vizu asked if he could get my scenery to give it a little lift up and then would send it back to me so I could run it through 7.5
Well, I think his little lift up he made from on ladys picture I send is more than just a WIP and so put it in here now into the Image Gallery.
The effect I was using in first picture is like an "old man" effect. Means you need reading glasses to see sharp what is near but can see everything sharp in the distance.
Second one I would sort into a typical DOF scenerey where sharp point is limited into a very small area.
Thanks again to Vizu for setting up the scenery |
Post by W!ZARD // Apr 13, 2007, 5:37am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Interesting work guys. Speaking as a photographer I'm often disappointed by the artificial DOF used by many CG artists. Depth Of Field is a photographic phenomenon, the result of the way lenses are made. Strictly speaking it can be considered a defect or shortcoming of lens design. Lens makers strive to minimise this effect - however many cunning photographers use this effect artistically.
It often does not work convincingly in cg work because the DOF in the cg image does not accurately portray real world Depth of field effects. To reproduce the DOF effects shown here using a camera and an equivalently scaled scene would be very dificult (I think - I'm not an expert!). Great care and subtlety must be used with DOF IMHO.
It is an often misused or over-used effect much like the false camera flare often used in cg work to add 'realism'.
Personally I'd like to see this scene with no DOF whatsoever.
Sorry, I hope this does not sound too harsh. |
Post by Emma // Apr 13, 2007, 7:17am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
Personally I'd like to see this scene with no DOF whatsoever.
no problem, here it is:) |
Post by Emma // Apr 13, 2007, 12:16pm
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
It often does not work convincingly in cg work because the DOF in the cg image does not accurately portray real world Depth of field effects
Well, real world is not the only intention one may have in mind. For example following picture which is also created by Vizu as one of the samples he send me when I asked him for a nice scenery to show DOF.
- First intention from me was of course to simply show the effect as it technically appears with lenses.
- Now he created a scenery with a long room, clearly written Truespace 7.5 at the wall, a lot of chairs and a hand full of planks that still needed to get fixed somwhere.
- when I saw that scenery I interpreted it as follows, as none Betatesters he primarily want's finally get his hand on trueSpace 7.5, a lot of others are also waiting to sit down on their chair and start working, but he knows, there still is a little bit of work left to finish trueSpace 7.5
Now I thought it could be better to not simply technically try to show DOF but rather give this a meaning, an expression or interpretation of something. So I placed a sharp small area outside directly on the soil, that would represent where most users are now, preversion of 7.5. The difference between old and new version is indeed a big step. One can have an idea what comes but this idea can not yet be clearly seen, it's just peeling out of the dawn. A small light area between the dark clouds seems just to be opening and as soon as the sun will rise everything will be clearly recognizable, well then it is just without DOF.
So what I want to say with this, CG-effects not only have to be used as a mirror of the reality, they can be used to hide the reality so that there is space for phantasy. |
Post by Vizu // Apr 13, 2007, 10:55pm
|
Vizu
Total Posts: 628
|
poor result emma :(
I can´t see any clear areas.
This looks like a bad rendering with the big nois in.
Maybe someone here can tell us how to set the focus on a special poin (like the 2 stacked chairs.
http://www.wire-frame.de/emma/emma1.jpg
Caligary havn´t charge my credit card yet so i can´t try ti do it on my self PC. |
Post by Emma // Apr 14, 2007, 1:23am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
I can´t see any clear areas.
:D You see what you wan't to see, I calculated what I imagine in phantasy
The sharp area is really borderlined on a small strip of the urbain soil in the very foreground. You can see there that water is missing in the earth there as the soil looks dryed out and broken up.
But OK, her is what you want to see, focus on a chair :) |
Post by W!ZARD // Apr 14, 2007, 2:59am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Thanks Emma - the sharper images are way more interesting to my eye as I can see what is going on.
You raise a very valid point about using DOF symbolically, to create a fantasy edge and tell a story. In fact many photographers (including myself) use DOF expressly for this purpose.
The problem as I see it is that most of us are very accustomed to seeing photographs containing DOF artifacts, both as a result of the limitations of lens construction and as you suggest, a deliberate ploy to focus attention at a specific point. Because we are so familiar with the effect in photo's we can usually tell - consciously or otherwise - when the DOF effect is artificial.
There are two factors here - one, a real lens will have a focus to distance gradient that follows a bell curve, with the sharpest focus at the top of that curve and the greatest lack of focus at the extremes. We are all so familiar with this effect that we can easily recognise when artificial cg DOF fails to conform to the usual focus / distance distribution curve. This is a very common shortcoming to a lot of cg images that us DOF.
Two, we are also acclimatised to seeing DOF used as a composition tool where the subject of the picture is isolated from it's surroundings by being the only thing that is sharply focused. We have all seen pictures of pretty girls in a field of flowers where the only sharp element of the picture is the subject - ie, the pretty girl.
By contrast your images here have no specific subject in the sharp zone thus they don't work as well from the composition aspect.
We would usually expect to see either 'scene, subject, scene' as we look deeper into the picture (or often just 'subject, scene) where the scene bits, the forground and background, are blurred and the subject is the only focussed component. Your pictures here do not have a clear subject which is why the images with no DOF at all work far better compositionally speaking.
This is a common and subtle error made by many people who want to play with the DOF features in cg programs. For this reason I always recommend finding a photograph with a subject and scene scale that shows the degree of DOF you want to portray - base your cg DOF settings and composition on that reference picture otherwise you run the very real risk of creating a picture that simply says 'this artist does not fully understand DOF'.
I think it is very important to have a central subject in the focused area - otherwise it's like having a spotlight in a dark scene shining on nothing in particular.
You mention the dry earth as being the focal point but generally the subject stands sharply against the blurred background. If you had just one chair, sitting on the dry soil and in sharp focus with the blurred background behind it, this second image would work much better IMHO
Thats my opinion anyway - please keep experimenting though as we all learn from your experiences:D
I'd be very interested to know what other people think about this DOF issue. |
Post by TomG // Apr 14, 2007, 3:36am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
My advice is always "do what you like" :)
As in, go with what you want to see as your end result. Some will like it, some will not. It doesn't really matter whether the end result is realistic (unless it matters to you, the artist, that it be realisitc).
The DOF techniques here are very good to know and hear discussed. Visually too for me the blurry chair image would have made a nice background to place something else in front of it - but to me I would have had something in front of it, as Wizard notes, a subject of some sort that we are focused on.
But - that's me! And this is not my image. If someone else likes the soft, out of focus look (out of focus both in terms of the sharpness of the image, and "out of focus" metaphorically with no subject, "no focus"), then that is just fine!
While it is good to pass on the advice about how DOF (or any effect) is caused in the real world, and how photographers use it, and what in a CG image makes it look unreal - that is just one side of the coin. The other side is making a picture with nothing but lens flares from no visible light source, or making a totally blurred picture with unrealistic fall off to the blurring, or rendering with a false color shader, or a cel shaded effect - what they term "NPR" or Non-Photorealistic Rendering.
It's all art, and in art, everything is allowed!
So let us all read and learn, the DOF info here is very valuable. But also lets remember that Emma is the artist and if they like and prefer the "out of focus" image style, that's valid too. It's an interesting technique actually - leaves you searching the image looking for a focus, and every place you look, you bore in with your vision to see what is there and fill in with the imagination - is this an upcoming presentation about trueSpace, held on a beach? Is it abandoned, everyone run off due to some emergency? Is something different about one of the chairs? Maybe there is something hiding under a chair in one place in the picture....
And so on. While it doesnt engage the viewer in a conventional manner - "Here! THIS is my subject, the whole subject for this picture, the center of it, the one thing that is interesting in this picture, and I am telling you what it is and not letting you pick what you find interesting!" - it certainly presents new ways to engage the viewer.
HTH :)
Tom |
Post by parva // Apr 14, 2007, 5:22am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
DOF is a tool to add depth to your image or create attention to a special object/thing.
Think on pictures where small things are rendered (a doll house) or a camera is close to a flower etc..
DOF can help to "feel" the size of objects.
Even a small amount of DOF can add a special flair to your picture.
There are works where it is commend to use and other where it isn't.
The problem is that people tend to overuse those. The same with the lensflares Tom mentioned. |
Post by Vizu // Apr 14, 2007, 5:34am
|
Vizu
Total Posts: 628
|
Yes emma !
This is what i mean and i like it a lot.
The center chair in the front is focus and the rest will blurred with distance.
Good good.
I know the same result is possible in Photoshop without long rendertime but some guys dosn´t have Photoshop.
here is my result with dof in photoshop.
http://www.wire-frame.de/trash/emma3.jpg |
Post by splinters // Apr 14, 2007, 5:38am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Parva nails it for me. When I do 'big shots' I tend to add gaussian blur to the background in PS prior to rendering-never really apply it to the objects in the shot but this is just my choice.
However, when I do the 'cartoony' stuff such as pepe and Harold, I want that stop motion sort of look and it is hard to get small objects in focus without a noticable DOF effect. I use this to trick the viewer into thinking what I do is stop motion style rather then CGI. Add a few effects in PS and a nice post process blur and you get a nice subtle effect.
Again, my personal preference but see for yourself; |
Post by Emma // Apr 14, 2007, 5:39am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
lets remember that Emma is the artist
Not quite, Vizu created the scenery I then took only the "paint brush" und painted it over. As you can see the imagination of originator and painter already differed above. But I like this discussion , especially as I have the impression that Wizzard learned to work with old style machine, a camera. so it's right what he says. Modern technics make so much possible but in a few years no one will remember what it once really looked like. Modern freshed up style will be understood as normal, even though it's artificial. But where we want to go to is getting trueSpace in trueplay to true relality, some day. So what we need is everybodys oppinion.
As a close up of this theme by me, because otherwise should have placed it into WIP section, I'll put in last pictures which I hope contain something of what Wizzard said, a focused point of interest in a "crowd". Didn't have so much flowers, they're still growing in our garden, so took a few objects directly from trueSpace.
In sum we can say I guess DOF = an in "Depth Overwhelming Field" of possibilities and point of views.
here is my result with dof in photoshop.
hey Vizu, youd dind't send me the sun with the scenery file. I can discover so much real looking sunshine in your Photoshop version ;) |
Post by xmanflash // Apr 14, 2007, 6:13am
|
xmanflash
Total Posts: 335
|
Again, my personal preference but see for yourself;
Splinters, That is a very effective use of DOF without it being noticable.. I dont like DOF that is obvious unless its in a foreground portait shot.. |
Post by Emma // Apr 14, 2007, 6:30am
|
Emma
Total Posts: 344
|
unless its in a foreground portait shot..
yes, but take above scene in an animation where the evil rhino want's to kick the pharao. Moving focus from foreground - pharao - to the background - rhino - would take the scenery into a special mode for outside viewer. After all what I read meanwhile in this thread I think DOF has extended from once only being used with the camera for a 2D picture to a 3D tool.
This means for mea we are all meeting on the middle of a star to use trueSpace and everybody follows his starbeam for whatever he want's to create. |
Post by Wigand // Apr 14, 2007, 10:26am
|
Wigand
Total Posts: 462
|
If we want to picture reality, we should not forget, that our eyes see things
in an other way.
Yes, we focuse on (at?) an object, but outside of a very small area, I think about
5-10% everything is blurred. And not only this, we can only see colours in the
middle of our sight.
If we see a manmade picture like a foto, the photographer wants to put our
eyes on the point he wants. In old paintings this was done by perspective
and lines to the center. But then photographers came and they had a new way
to point our view on the objects they want. DOF!
And now, with our computers, we have all the tools to simulate photographers,
old paintings, our eyes, the reality. And I am very happy that I will get
Vray with DOF. Thank you. |
Post by Methusela // Apr 14, 2007, 12:07pm
|
Methusela
Total Posts: 414
|
And not only this, we can only see colours in the
middle of our sight.
Really? I certainly seem to be able to see all of the colours not only in my direct sight, but my peripheral vision as well. Not even faded or anything. |
Post by kena // Apr 14, 2007, 7:28pm
|
kena
Total Posts: 2321
|
from http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b110.html
Rods and cones form an uneven mosaic within the retina, with rods generally outnumbering cones more than 10 to 1—except in the retina's center, or fovea. The cones are highly concentrated in the fovea, an area that Nathans calls "the most valuable square millimeter of tissue in the body."
Fovea
A depression in the central region of the vertebrate retina, containing closely packed cones. It is responsible for high-acuity vision.
So I think perhaps this is just a mixing up of information. It may be true that the most color receptors are in the center of the eye, but that does not mean that we cannot see colors that are not directly in front of us.
Then there are rare people who can see color in dimmer light than other people.
I was alwayw amazed that I could distinguish colors in a darker environment than my brother.
Maybe because I have gren eyes and he has brown... would take too much time to research now, but I may do that someday. |
Post by W!ZARD // Apr 14, 2007, 8:53pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
My advice is always "do what you like" :)
Tom
Absolutely! I could not agree more. And at the risk of sounding all metaphysical and existential I'd like to add to Toms point by saying that "There is no such thing as right and wrong, just different ways of being" - (Ben Elton).
This is the essence of 'artistic licence' IMHO. As Tom says, 'It's all art and in art everything is allowed'. I do hope my comments weren't seen as overly critical of Emma's work here - I was intending to address DOF and it's usage in general rather than picking Emma's work apart. I was also under the impression that Emma's intention was to show the DOF feature at work rather than creating an artwork using DOF. In this Emma's pictures work fine.
Splinters has shown (with both his Harold picture here and his latest self portrait with the unfocused mesh fence) how DOF can be used effectively.
And while it is all art and there is no right way or wrong way I suggest that there are ways of varying levels of effectiveness. Art is communication and some images communicate more effectively than others. A picture with appropriate amounts of DOF (or light, or colour or contrast etc) will usually work more effectively that the same image with inappropriate levels of DOF and so on. The artistry with which these visual attributes are applied is what can lift a good picture into a great picture IMHO.
As Parva says, the problem lies in the overuse of these attributes.
If a viewer looks at a picture and is distracted by overused DOF (or colour, light, contrast, lens flares, Poser Breast morphs ;) etc) from the message communicated by the image then the images effectiveness as a communication is diminished IMO.
Excessive and artificial DOF is certainly a legitimate tool - we have all seen movies where the focus shifts from the foreground to the background to follow the dialogue for example - but to be effective it must support the artwork not detract from it.
Coming back to Emmas original picture here - the intent was to demonstrate the effect of DOF, to communicate how DOF worked in that instance, and as such it works perfectly - a very effective communication. As to whether it works artistically, well that's partly subjective. Emma's picture is an excellent illustration of a technique but it is not a good example of the artistic use of DOF - I don't think it was ever intended as such.
Last comment; The artistic 'rules' of DOF (or any compositional element) can certainly be 'broken' or applied in extremes and this is perfectly legitimate IMO. For me it is really a question of whether the effect serves the message of the artwork effectively or not. Any effect or artistic strategy should serve the purpose of the message, not overwhelm or obscure it. |
Post by Wigand // Apr 16, 2007, 5:03am
|
Wigand
Total Posts: 462
|
from http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b110.html
but that does not mean that we cannot see colors that are not directly in front of us.
.
Yes, my declaration was not exact enough.
Here you can find something about the dependency between color and sight.
It is in german language, but I think you can interpret the pictures too.
http://www.multimedia-beratung.de/ergonomie/theorie/grundlagen/gesichtssinn.htm |
|
