Rank: Junior Member
Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC) Posts: 15
I've been impressed with many works I've seen in the gallery, and thought I might add one. I person at work asked if I could loft a RF-101 for a RC Model. I thought it might be fun, and a challenge to create it as a solid in ViaCAD. Here's some pictures of it pulled into shark for photorendering. The only Mods to the rendering, were to pull it into Photoshop to add a lense flare effect
Ed Kocialski
Ed Kocia attached the following image(s):
F-101_Voodoo_5.jpg
(33kb) downloaded 8 time(s). F-101_Voodoo_6.jpg
(38kb) downloaded 7 time(s). F-101_Voodoo_7.jpg
(28kb) downloaded 7 time(s). F-101_Voodoo_8.jpg
(36kb) downloaded 7 time(s). You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,447
Was thanked: 502 time(s) in 353 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Ed Kocia I've been impressed with many works I've seen in the gallery, and thought I might add one. I person at work asked if I could loft a RF-101 for a RC Model. I thought it might be fun, and a challenge to create it as a solid in ViaCAD. Here's some pictures of it pulled into shark for photorendering. The only Mods to the rendering, were to pull it into Photoshop to add a lense flare effect Ed Kocialski
Awesome Ed, thanks for sharing!!!
FYI, we added support for lens flares in Shark FX V6.
http://www.csi-concepts.com/Dem...kFXV6/LensFlareFinal.mov Tim
Tim Olson IMSI Design/Encore
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Tim Olson FYI, we added support for lens flares in Shark FX V6.
Ever since Adobe decided to include a flair plug in within Photoshop, flare has become a very popular effect. Personally though, I wouldn't touch this effect with a barge pole. Why? Well flare is actually a by-product of bad lens coating and bad lens design, where the light is allowed to bounce back and forth between surfaces creating "that look". During the 1960's flare was used creatively- I can for one think of the back cover of Tim Buckley's "Happy Sad" LP, where a portrait of the young singer is swamped in flare, but you can also see the image is lower in contrast, and lacks overall definition (something you really need to consider, if you still think that your renders will benefit from this effect).
Carl Zeiss, Leica and Nikon spent years, and went to great lengths to try and eliminate. Personally I don't think this effect improves a render, as in my opinion, it only makes it look cheap, and/ or distracts from poor use of CAD light programming. If you look in the gallery of the Maxwell renderer plugin, you will find no use of flare anywhere (apart from perhaps when "looking straight into the sun", but even then, those renders don't look
that real)- and those Maxwell renders are virtually indistinguishable from real studio photographs.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/21/2007(UTC) Posts: 278
Originally Posted by: ttrw Ever since Adobe decided to include a flair plug in within Photoshop, flare has become a very popular effect. Personally though, I wouldn't touch this effect with a barge pole. Why? Well flare is actually a by-product of bad lens coating and bad lens design, where the light is allowed to bounce back and forth between surfaces creating "that look". During the 1960's flare was used creatively- I can for one think of the back cover of Tim Buckley's "Happy Sad" LP, where a portrait of the young singer is swamped in flare, but you can also see the image is lower in contrast, and lacks overall definition (something you really need to consider, if you still think that your renders will benefit from this effect). Carl Zeiss, Leica and Nikon spent years, and went to great lengths to try and eliminate. Personally I don't think this effect improves a render, as in my opinion, it only makes it look cheap, and/ or distracts from poor use of CAD light programming. If you look in the gallery of the Maxwell renderer plugin, you will find no use of flare anywhere (apart from perhaps when "looking straight into the sun", but even then, those renders don't look that real)- and those Maxwell renders are virtually indistinguishable from real studio photographs.
Exactly right tom.
One of the neat things about Maxwell Render is that you can set the aperture of your camera to control depth of field. I don't know if Lightworks has this, but it really adds to the realism of the image.
Hoping for artistic rendering of curves and edges which Cinema 4D supports, but I think that it is a Lightworks option.
BTW Tom, Maxwell Render is coming up on a 2.0 version with a substantial performance bump. Much needed in my opinion.
the other tom
Rank: Junior Member
Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC) Posts: 15
Tim,
Tried the v6 Lensflare. Great for a single object. When I put the lightsource where I wanted it, I had to incase it in an opaque shere to keep it from casing canopy bowframe shadows on the second object. secondly, it worked on a screen render with a PC, but on the render to file, the lens flare was omitted. This holds a lot of promise. Will the sketch render to screen option be available to render to file?
Ed
Ed Kocia attached the following image(s):
F-101_Voodoo_v6_lensflare_screenshot.jpg
(29kb) downloaded 6 time(s). You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,447
Was thanked: 502 time(s) in 353 post(s)
>>but on the render to file, the lens flare was omitted. >>Will the sketch render to screen option be available to render to file? Ed Very nice! I will talk to ryan about fixing each of these. Regards Tim
Tim Olson IMSI Design/Encore
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Originally Posted by: tmay One of the neat things about Maxwell Render is that you can set the aperture of your camera to control depth of field. I don't know if Lightworks has this, but it really adds to the realism of the image.
DoF would be an absolutely ACE inclusion to Shark 6's renderer. Any chance of this being added Tim?
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,447
Was thanked: 502 time(s) in 353 post(s)
Originally Posted by: ttrw DoF would be an absolutely ACE inclusion to Shark 6's renderer. Any chance of this being added Tim?
Will check with Ryan. LW does support this, and I recall he played around a bit with it.
Tim
Tim Olson IMSI Design/Encore
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Tim, I just thought, I don't know whether LW also supports camera movements as well? I'm talking Tilt, Shift etc on both film and lens axis- essentially technical camera specifications (take a look at Sinar or Linhof for eg). This would firmly place SFX in an even stronger position against the competition. Tom
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 11/4/2007(UTC) Posts: 515
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: ttrw Ever since Adobe decided to include a flair plug in within Photoshop, flare has become a very popular effect. Personally though, I wouldn't touch this effect with a barge pole. Why? Well flare is actually a by-product of bad lens coating and bad lens design, where the light is allowed to bounce back and forth between surfaces creating "that look". During the 1960's flare was used creatively- I can for one think of the back cover of Tim Buckley's "Happy Sad" LP, where a portrait of the young singer is swamped in flare, but you can also see the image is lower in contrast, and lacks overall definition (something you really need to consider, if you still think that your renders will benefit from this effect). Carl Zeiss, Leica and Nikon spent years, and went to great lengths to try and eliminate. Personally I don't think this effect improves a render, as in my opinion, it only makes it look cheap, and/ or distracts from poor use of CAD light programming. If you look in the gallery of the Maxwell renderer plugin, you will find no use of flare anywhere (apart from perhaps when "looking straight into the sun", but even then, those renders don't look that real)- and those Maxwell renders are virtually indistinguishable from real studio photographs.
There're a lot of audiophiles who like valve amps because the sound is less sterile than a more exact MOSFET reproduction. You might use lens flare precisely because it's eyecatching, and you want to draw the viewer to that feature. I'd call that creative use! At least you can photoshop it anywhere, not the case with a cheap lens.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Murray, that's exactly what I was saying. Lens flare is something that can be added using Photoshop. tmay is absolutely right, depth of Field otoh, is far more a useful feature. Not all photographers use apertures of f128 all the time! (we would have to have 3000 watt/seconds flash heads, then have to fire them several times again, with the shutter open, because of reciprocity faliure!! :D However, using DoF, one can highlight certain points, drawing the eye to that detail- not by using cheap effects such as lens flare (which like Murray quite rightly points out, can be added using Photoshop at a later date). Ed, I'm not knocking your designs, as they are excellent, but what I am saying is to think more carefully about how an image is portrayed. A sports photographer would use a large aperture of between f2.8 and f4, f5.6 at the very most, so they could also use a 400mm lens, hendheld, which means a shutter speed (to stop action) of 1000th/s to 4000th/s. Depth of Field would therefore be extremely shallow (although at infinity, perhaps you probably wouldn't notice a difference?).
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/21/2007(UTC) Posts: 278
Originally Posted by: ttrw Murray, that's exactly what I was saying. Lens flare is something that can be added using Photoshop. tmay is absolutely right, depth of Field otoh, is far more a useful feature. Not all photographers use apertures of f128 all the time! (we would have to have 3000 watt/seconds flash heads, then have to fire them several times again, with the shutter open, because of reciprocity faliure!! :D However, using DoF, one can highlight certain points, drawing the eye to that detail- not by using cheap effects such as lens flare (which like Murray quite rightly points out, can be added using Photoshop at a later date). Ed, I'm not knocking your designs, as they are excellent, but what I am saying is to think more carefully about how an image is portrayed. A sports photographer would use a large aperture of between f2.8 and f4, f5.6 at the very most, so they could also use a 400mm lens, hendheld, which means a shutter speed (to stop action) of 1000th/s to 4000th/s. Depth of Field would therefore be extremely shallow (although at infinity, perhaps you probably wouldn't notice a difference?).
Just wanted to add that Maxwell Render simulates the diaphragm of the lens as well as other lens/camera characteristics. It is possible to get pleasant looking boheh in the out of focus areas of an image.
Do a search on bokeh if you aren't familiar with the effect (it is easier than explaining it).
Rank: Junior Member
Joined: 1/4/2010(UTC) Posts: 5
Originally Posted by: ttrw Ever since Adobe decided to include a flair plug in within Photoshop, flare has become a very popular effect. Personally though, I wouldn't touch this effect with a barge pole. Why? Well flare is actually a by-product of bad lens coating and bad lens design, where the light is allowed to bounce back and forth between surfaces creating "that look". During the 1960's flare was used creatively- I can for one think of the back cover of Tim Buckley's "Happy Sad" LP, where a portrait of the young singer is swamped in flare, but you can also see the image is lower in contrast, and lacks overall definition (something you really need to consider, if you still think that your renders will benefit from this effect). Carl Zeiss, Leica and Nikon spent years, and went to great lengths to try and eliminate. Personally I don't think this effect improves a render, as in my opinion, it only makes it look cheap, and/ or distracts from poor use of CAD light programming. If you look in the gallery of the Maxwell renderer plugin, you will find no use of flare anywhere (apart from perhaps when "looking straight into the sun", but even then, those renders don't look that real)- and those Maxwell renders are virtually indistinguishable from real studio photographs.
The technical details seem quite accurate in your first paragraph, (along with the first sentence of the second paragraph) but the rest of your statement feels more of an opinion. In my own opinion (and this is just my opinion) I feel that the subtle effect of the lense flare used in his renders made the overall pictures come out that much better. Also, if you consider the time period when the F-101 was in use, lens flare was much more of an issue than it is today, because of the developments that the major camera manufacturers have done in order to eliminate that issue. So adding the subtle flare actually adds a touch of period correctness to the renders.
Rank: Junior Member
Joined: 10/10/2009(UTC) Posts: 5
I love the models, but I hate the flare!
Forum Jump
Punch! CAD
ViaCAD & Shark
- News and Announcements
- General
- 2D Drafting
- Surface Modeling
- Solid Modeling
- Subdivision Modeling
- Rendering & Display
- Import/Export
- Tips and Tutorials
- Suggestions
- Gallery
- PowerPack
- Punch Lounge
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.