View Full Version : How good can this be rendered?
I had some small success rendering Google SU output in Povray. But absolutely nothing that comes even remotely close to what I see you people perform over here.
Just as a reference for me, so I can learn what can actually be achieved, and understand what advantages each engine has, would it be possible for you to give this simple SU file your best shot and show me how good it can be rendered with your engine of choice? Thanks.
In attachment the SKP file called Provence.skp.
Litte sketch in PNG format of the house I would like to use as a reference.
=M=,
why not spend some time evaluating previous posts and information already supplied regarding renderers? whether searching here or on other forums of specific renderers...also, try looking for the famous Sponza (sp?) test done by various renderers. It was a benchmark file, like the one you've supplied, used for this purpose.
Trogers, thank you for your feedback. I have spent several days already reading through all posts. I'll definitly lookup that Sponza test.
One of the reasons I ask you professionals to give it a shot with my SU file is too better understand rendering, and to see what can be achieved with simple geometry and default textures. Note that most likely I still haven't figured out the basic concepts behind rendering (e.g. do you have to use "special" textures to get effects or will any texture / color do - special textures those that are installed in SU after you install the rendering engine).
I have the frustrating feeling that the demo examples coming with the engines are always "special" :-) and that rendering my simple projects won't turn out that nice.
I'm new to this, but eager to learn and prepared to spent time.
when you have this kind of a test, you have to remember that there are factors here that are very much unknown: the largest one being the skillset of the one doing the renders. My skills and how I may "represent" a specific renderer may be a hindrance to your perception of how "good" of a renderer it is for you.
Remember, also, it is all in the materials and lighting.
RebelBMH
11-07-2006, 21:53
i would agree trogers, a good renderer could make even the worst of renders look fairly decent. I would look up the other threads, but try dling trial versions of each one and deciding for yourself. When it comes to a good render, I tend to pick an easy platform with speed over top notch quality. There are other times I prefer quality... just up to you.
kwistenbiebel
11-07-2006, 23:02
Hi M,
Welcome to the forum.
Here a 12 min render maxwell
Thanks kwistenbiebel, much appreciated. My obvious next question would be how did you achieve that? What are the basic steps to execute to achieve that output. Currently playing with Artlantis. I downloaded Maxwell this weekend but couldn't get it to work. Right now best results for me are with Povray... I'm learning... thanks again for taking your time.
Ah this is great. By simply looking at the above picture you can learn so much. Camera positioning, angle, shadows. It's great. Love to study the details.
kwistenbiebel
11-07-2006, 23:27
Actually, Maxwell is a real pain in the *ss .
For me..it's trial and error and a lot of frustrations every time i use it
First results - hardly knowing what I'm doing :-) with Artlantis.
Because Belgians help Belgians
...:(...
I'm not implying that this is a situation of not wanting to help...just wanted to give fair warning as to other non-constants in the equation of understanding the differences of rendering platforms. Just wanting to slap the disclaimer out there before everyone posts...
I plan on making a go at it in Maxwell, too...just need time to do it.
Trogers your feedback is well understood. This is an exercise for me and allows me to learn. It's not just about different platforms but also on learning how people approach rendering, what they put focus on, etc. For a complete beginner as myself seeing what a pro can achieve with a simple model is very very motivating and useful - I like simplicity and enjoy observing what makes something great. It's crazy how much I enjoy studying kwistenbiebel's model.
kwistenbiebel
12-07-2006, 00:03
Here with background.
The thing with maxwell is that the developers don't invest in the sketchup plugin resulting in chaotic usability. Sometimes you use the plugin, sometimes you have to change to the studio. most of the time it gets really annoying. Even rotating and panning the camera in studio is itchy.
One of the worst GUI (graphical interface) i have ever seen.
The basic concept behind maxwell is great, but the company next limit is too much of a 'rookie' to make it consistent and workable.
Maybe in some years....(or another company)
kwistenbiebel
12-07-2006, 00:08
...:(...
I'm not implying that this is a situation of not wanting to help...just wanted to give fair warning as to other non-constants in the equation of understanding the differences of rendering platforms. Just wanting to slap the disclaimer out there before everyone posts...
I plan on making a go at it in Maxwell, too...just need time to do it.
hey Trogers,
The quote 'belgians helping belgians' wasn't a remark towards you.
I was just happy to see a Belgian companion on the board. That's why i said that. I share your opinion that it's not the software but the 'man' behind it that is important.
Cheers :P
sandropc
12-07-2006, 05:27
This is my trial with Artlantis Studio, render time 1 minute, working on it 5-10 minutes...
Unfortunately you will strugle to get this model looking presentable in any of the photo-realistic render engines such as Maxwell as they require very acurately modeled details. Go have a look at Richards renders in the Maxwell forum (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3713), thats the kind of detail you will require to get the results you want.
Thank you all for your help!
Axie, what do you mean with "very acurately modeled details"? (Keep in mind that I'm new to this.) Do I have the use specialized textures, not just the default ones from SU or is that not relevant? Or do you mean the house needs more details in its model, like a frame around the window, threshold, etc?
m-
sometimes the way that light catches the edge of a window, for example, is really dependent on how well you have drawn that detail as it would be in real life- when you model quickly, in a way that would be good enough for normal SketchUp drawings, it can sometimes be too 'rough' to look realistic in a renderer.
Thank you all for your help!
Axie, what do you mean with "very acurately modeled details"? (Keep in mind that I'm new to this.) Do I have the use specialized textures, not just the default ones from SU or is that not relevant? Or do you mean the house needs more details in its model, like a frame around the window, threshold, etc?
To get the building to an acceptable level in maxwell you would have to use better textures, but that also could be said for all renders as the default sketchup textures aren't exactly great. The main problem is, however, that you would need to model every little detail such as the window frames, door knobs etc to make the render worthwhile. The further you go into photorealism the more errors or missing elements the human eye will pick up, where with more "artistic" renders you can get away with a lot less detail. As many people are finding out, getting decent renders out of engines like maxwell take a shitload of work ...
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.