OTOY Forums

I ran into discussion with a client of mine about the render quality.
He simply tells me the 3D doesn't looks as real as the 3D from his previous 3D vendor or as a simple photo he took with his iphone.

I think the use of a good background image plus a HDRI for reflections is the key in most scenes.
Maybe it is something about my setup or post-texhnique. Or he is just to picky in some ways and misses the amount of work which you have to put in very detailed models for such an image.

I put comments below the attachments.
The ones with the little to much blueish tint are the latest ones. I always use Pathtracing or in rare cases PMC.
The balcony image has been done with Octane 1.5 (HDRI).

The other,really good one, is made with Indigo Renderer and I think it uses a HDRI image too. I may be an image with an emtpy terrace and the contruction plus furniture placed in 3D there.
The last one with the winter-garden and all the furniture in, is supposed to be 3D too. Which I really can't believe.

Really would love to hear some suggestion in all directions.
At the moment I re-installed my old Maxwell Render License and see what I can do there because it offers more control with HDRI files and displacement. I really doubt it will do a big difference to Octane.

If you really want to bring life to your renders take a cue from the photographers. they spend a lot of time getting rid of Chromatic Aberration so their images can become clear, we on the other hand will need to add Chromatic aberration so our images can become less clear and more believable. I was one told its best to have it look like a bad photo than a great crisp render. Of course this depends on the subject and client. Usually if the image is for print then there will be some amount of slack however if for broadcast there is still a bit higher loss in conversion, unless they are going 4K or 1080P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

My guess
Last one: photo
Second last: photo + 3d objects or complete photo

If your client tells you the computer generated images doesn't look as real as a photo he takes with his iPhone, then you hit the jackpot!

I think your renderings are well done. Maybe I would make them a little bit warmer with white balance.
The background image in the second image could be better integrated.
Maybe some post production with PhotoLooks or Nik Color?

In 2nd render the sun direction doesn't fit background one.

In the background image the light comes from the right side.
In you scene the light comes from the left side.

Maybe some post production with PhotoLooks or Nik Color?

I use the NIK Suite all the time. Maybe I went overboard a bit with bloom or the other things you can add into an image with the Nik tools. Less could be more.

@TugPsx:
Yes I'm aware of it. I think the photos sometimes have some blurry parts and grain coming from the lense and often image compression. Maybe if I add those stuff to the raw-render first it will be easier to match the iphone photos.


Thanks Karba. Didn't notice.

btw, last night after installing Maxwell Render again and pressing render button again I just felt like falling back to the stone age after not using it for over a year now.

mbetke wrote: btw, last night after installing Maxwell Render again and pressing render button again I just felt like falling back to the stone age after not using it for over a year now.

=DDD.. think everyone has this type of feeling steppin' back to some engine used prior..


as some coments to Your issues with clients. Personally I had some discusions a while ago that was related to the feel that didn't match 'reality'. Majority of this was caused by WB (white balance) - modern cameras solve this very good (arguably if very artistic =D

I do preffere Your first image as it has that freshness, lightness feeling, but if You look to what Your client provided, what these two images have in common is very neutral wb - the shadows a grey, white is white - almost no tint..

in addition sometimes CG images are too harsh, the shadows are too crisp & because of small resolutions they might have very sharp transitions too..I love Bertrand Benoit's talk in AD4 very he pointed out that he always use area filter in vray with quite high value as it gives the blur for the image & brings closer to actual photo. Yeah, You might need to render higher resolution..-but that comes closer to photo when You scale things down =)

the last one is a photo
http://atlassolarproducts.com/insulated ... sun-rooms/

@mbetke
for me the level of details in a picture can give it away no matter how real your render looks.
Try to add small but VERY important details to your models like ROUND EDGES to everything that doesnt have (chamfer with at least 1 itineration, it willl be more than enough if it;s not a close-up on a specific object)
Comparing your render with the last picture i can see that your solar panels have less geometry, windows don't have as much details.

Try to have more small details that add to the realism of the render, for your scene will be something like a towel on the edge of the chair, maybe some slippers, a mobile phone or some other small gadgets. SOme candles nea the bath tub. Maybe some types of dirt maps. and maybe go for renders that have a realistic (camera like) aspect ratio, the most DSLR cameras have a 3 x 2 picture ratio, you can put a 900x600 and go to any resolution you need mentaining aspect ratio.

Try to find some real photo examples of scenes similar to yours and repoduce as much as possible the level of details (and objects) in that picture.

Good luck

So ... what is causing the blue tint? The HDR? A sun with too much blue in the light?

mbetke, I can't remember if it is only us LW users that have material override in Octane plug, but doing a b/w pass with override that puts some random/subtle/well spaced dirt (for lack of a better word at the moment) around the entire scene does wonders to add to realism. Obviously, this be used as layer in PS comp then. Try this if you have the ability.

I really thought about that the last image is a photo. Thanks for the quick search.

The blue tint was from the HDRI but I used white balance but added it back in post. I uploaded a new version.
I think for such a close-up I need a bit better 3d models. This one is very edgy. It woill look great as soon as we get the displacement.

For the additional needed details I fully aggree but the client only imagines prices around 50€ for such an image and was surprised I charged him 120€ for the pool image. So there is really no room for a lot details. As an artist I want to thor in everything I have. as a businessman I have to calculate.
His former 3D guy is out of business while he charged 40-50€ for an image. Surprise, surprise.
Usually I work within this spec because he needs a lot of images and they are all based on 6 or 8 base scenes where I put another construction in, change sun and material-IDs and have a refurbished scene within half an hour rendered and ready to mail him.
But this is now a bit more specific material for marketing purposes.

Thanks so far, I will keep you updated.