Render Gallery Submission Thread (Updated 8-13) 56k warning

Xero · Post by **Xero** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:47 am

You can use real pics taken with a digital camera but need to have it at the right res that how you get the real effect

Logan · Post by **Logan** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:02 am

Define high res....

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:07 am

Your final HDR should at LEAST be 6144x12288

EDIT: view my post showing off my flythrough
http://www.yayap.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=14837#14837

AjemsuhgaoII · Post by **AjemsuhgaoII** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:28 am

That is really dark. Yes, I realise that it's a sunset, but even a sunset would light some of those areas up. >.<

[Ajem]

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:34 am

If the sun is dissapearing, the only light source, what makes you think it would be lighter? I thought that when you subtracted a light source, it did get darker.

AjemsuhgaoII · Post by **AjemsuhgaoII** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:36 pm

Yes, but it's not a direct light. Go outside during a sunset and go behind a building opposite the sun. There is light there, it isn't pitch black. Granted, it isn't easily visible, nor is it WELL illuminated, but there IS light.

[Ajem]

=sw=warlord · Post by **=sw=warlord** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:39 pm

its called reflcections and veegie is right about the render being acuate.

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:43 pm

AjemsuhgaoII wrote:Yes, but it's not a direct light. Go outside during a sunset and go behind a building opposite the sun. There is light there, it isn't pitch black. Granted, it isn't easily visible, nor is it WELL illuminated, but there IS light.

[Ajem]

The only way that you would be able to know that there is no visable illuminating photons would be if you knew the technical specs and settings of this render. You see, that is where you fail to meet the criteria, but I can give you my personal assurance that in even the small corner in the base, is there NO place that is COMPLETELY lacking light.

AjemsuhgaoII · Post by **AjemsuhgaoII** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:44 pm

Hmm, acuate? You're right that render is pretty sharp.

You wouldn't by any chance mean ACCURATE, would you...?

[Ajem]

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:45 pm

AjemsuhgaoII wrote:Hmm, acuate? You're right that render is pretty sharp.

You wouldn't by any chance mean ACCURATE, would you...?

[Ajem]

Congratulations on being the most publically methodologically dubious person, EVER. If you're going to comment on spelling, like I often do, atleast don't let that be the main and ONLY subject and point of your post.

Logan · Post by **Logan** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:19 pm

Your final HDR should at LEAST be 6144x12288

God lord...and be nice. >_>

Ketchup_Bomb · Post by **Ketchup_Bomb** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:06 pm

Veegie, wow. That is an awesome render.
That made my Christmas. Good work.

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:20 pm

Depth of Field along with daylight HDR image

*IMG removed, see below post*

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:18 am

Now that's what I'm talking about.
I love it.

rossgemuend · Post by **rossgemuend** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:47 am

omg veegie... awesome

Veegie[Temp] · Post by **Veegie[Temp]** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:24 pm

updated with specular bloom

EDIT: Madrox aim me

saddamsdevil · Post by **saddamsdevil** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:40 pm

wow *3dsgasms all over keyboard*

argrn · Post by **argrn** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:02 pm

That looks amazing.

Tural · Post by **Tural** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:09 pm

Indeed, looks awesome.

Madrox · Post by **Madrox** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:15 pm

Good job veegie, keep it going

depsite those ignorant bastards