Does anyone around here use volumetric atmospheres for any scenes other than sunrise/sunsets? Specifically, has anyone tried creating a volumetric scene with the sun "behind" the camera? If so, what were your impressions? -SMT

I did several (weird) experiment few weeks ago, about what kind of reflection I get from volumetric atmosphere. Unfortunately, the end result was a bit dissapointing; due to lack of my knowledge of Vue & overall lighting and somewhat what Volumetric atmosphere did. I deleted most of the stuffs, but I think I still have one. The sun is not exactly behind the camera; it's little to the left. But, I'm posting the pictures anyhow, for you to take a look. I'm actually glad that you brought up the subject. As far as I'm concern of your vast knowledge of Vue, (and since it's very hard to see you in this forum anymore!) you might be able to show me some light. :-)

This is the first result I got after an eleven hours of rendering in broadcast. The sun is little to the left. But doesn't do any good, so added some extra light from the up left corner. (that's doesn't help you on your question I think)

This one, I brought the sun very close as you see the bottom left corner (35 degree soft) and added tons of lights up right. Did not anti-aliased, cuz that gives me somewhat the same reflection as the above picture. What was the intention of this experiment, God knows! :-) What did I learn? Never fool around with Volumetric atmosphere unless you really have to! :-)

oh yes! don't want to break any rules here! ducks from lyne, dead tree was from zxcvb! PS. In both picture there are few other light source here and there. But, minor I believe. My intention was look at the reflections, not a perfect/ideal image! As you can see, they both look Yuck!

Pretty!

High Nish,

Honestly, I'd not really given it much thought until today. I think the reason why is that the particle effect of the volumetrics starts at zero distance from the camera. This is the same problem I've always had with fog in Vue. Let me relate this to the other program I'm fond of using, Truespace. In Truespace, you can set the minimum distance at which fog or volumetrics start. Any object inside of that distance is unaffected by the fog or volume. This is very useful for artistic applications where you want to be able to focus with clarity on the central point of interest, while "washing out" background details. It does no good to be able to wash out the background if it also obscures your focal point.

I did try a scene with a pinkish volumetric atmosphere and the sun at a 90 degree angle to the camera and low on the horizon. I let the sun cast light through a tree and into the foreground of the scene. It was an interesting effect, but I never finished the scene. I'll have to find out where I put it...

BTW: thanks for the feedback. I know it will take longer to render, but you might want to put your volumetrics on a higher quality setting to get rid of some of the pixelation. Also, if you find the scene interesting, you might want to try a lower camera angle a little closer to the ducks. Whenever I'm composing an outdoor scene, I have to keep repeating to meself, "Foreground, middle, background. Foreground, middle, background. Foreground, middle, background." I like your choice of coloring...

-SMT

Ok, foreground, middle, background. Foreground, middle, background. ... memorizing it. :-) If I may, look at the reflection on both pictures. In both case, above the scenes I placed over 20 trees (Big ones), but look I merely got any reflection of them. That's why I put the extra light source behind in 2nd picture, hoping that will create a shadow on the water (at least). Water had Zero transparency and maximum reflection settings. No fog. Is it because of the Volumetric Atmosphere? or the lighting was all wrong? And would you be kind enough to give me a lil' bit more details on what you had mind about 'volumetrics on a higher quality settings'? Considering all the things a 3D software offers, comparing to that, I consider myself a novice! I hope that clears out why the idiotic questions coming out my head. :-)

OK. A little art theory. Unless you're doing abstract art, you always want to build your image around a central point of interest. You usually use shading or color contrast to draw the viewer's eye directly to that point, and then use lines or zones of contrast to lead the viewer away from and back to that focal point. Strong horizontal lines should be balanced by strong vertical lines. You should be able to break an image into areas of similar values or colors. Every art teacher I've ever read or talked to says the same thing, "If you squint, you can reduce an image down to it's basic shapes. That's when you can see any flaws in the work." I get the same effect just by taking off my glasses :-) This is all art composition 101. I find that most everything I learned in painting as far as composition applies in 3D rendering as well. Let's squint at your first picture. I come up with 4 basic areas: top, middle bottom and left side. There is strong horizontal to it that would be balanced by the tree reflections in the background...except they're too weak through lack of contrast. Your focal point is the duck with the big head, as it is the most prominent of the ducks with the most contrast to the background. Unfortunately, The vertical limb...the only strong vertical in the picture...has even greater contrast than the lead duck and is in very close proximity to it. This tends to weaken the duck as the focal point and confuse the viewer's eye. Also, the picture is doing something you should try to avoid. A rule of thumb in painting says you never put a horizontal line right across the middle of the picture. Unfortunately, that's exactly what your log is doing. Here's what I would do. Angle the log so it reaches for the left corner. This will help give the viewer a way into and out of the picture and will give you some foreground material. It will also move the end of the log further into the middle. That's where the lead duck should be placed. Give him a little separation from the other ducks. The hump of the log will naturally set him higher, making him more prominent. Here's how you handle the tree reflections. Move the trees so there are none reflecting behind the lead duck. Since the duck is a dark figure, the reflection of the sky on the water behind the lead duck will increase the contrast. Increase the height of the remaining trees and thicken them. This should help somewhat in gaining contrast between the reflected trees and the reflected sky. Continued next post...

Just a word to answer your question about volumetric quality. It's a setting in the atmosphere editor...a slider, as I recall...that has "faster" at one end, and "better" at the other (or maybe it was "higher"...I'm not with the software right now) -SMT

All Right. 2nd picture. A squint tells me it also has 4 zones. 3 diagonal stripes and a circular area in the bottom right corner. Hard to tell if the focal point is the duck silhouetted on the rock...it has the most contrast...or the lead momma duck...she is the most isolated. The rock leads the viewer into the scene, and the line of ducks leads eventually to the mamma duck. But where to from there? The momma is surrounded by a big shadow that is isolated by a circle of light. There's no place to go. The Viewer can't go back, because are all pointing like arrows in the same direction. You need a target in the upper left corner. This target should then lead the viewer along the upper edge of the picture to the upper right corner where the direction of the shadows and reflections will automatically lead him straight back to the duck on the rock. From there the rock allows the viewer to step out of the picture again.

I hope you don't think I'm being overly critical. Art analysis is one of the things I do. I find it to be very helpful in my own work...although it usually means I'm never completely satisfied with anything I do. :-( Wow! This post went off on quite a tangent! -SMT

No wonder I was glad to see you back in the forum! :-) Critiques makes someone improve. And for me this was a great tutorial. I greatly thank you for the critique. By the way, just remembered, I sent one experiment to a friend of mine (the sun was directly behind the camera). If he still has 'em I'll post it tonight. I don't know if that'll help you or not; but it's certainly helping me! :-) Again, many thanks. nish

Great tangent, tho' "smallspace". We all probably learned a lot just now.

Nice analysis smallspace, and an area that many of us can benefit from. For anyone interested in pursuing these ideas of compositional theory further, may I recommend (as I have on other forums) a book that Deevee once pointed me to: "Drawing Scenery: Landscapes and Seascapes" by Jack Hamm, a paperback published by Perigree Books and still available from Amazon, priced $11.95 US. I have always regarded it as a few pounds very well spent. It has nothing to do with computers, being concerned entirely with drawing in natural media. However almost everything in it is immediately applicable to computer graphics work as well. Copiously illustrated with useful sketch figures rather than full-blown works of art, it is immensely practical and very readable. This is emphatically NOT a coffee-table book, nor an ivory-tower tome on abstract theories of composition. It is a hands-on work that teaches the fundamentals of compositional theory in a very straightforward and practical way - probably the next best thing to having a good art teacher sitting by your shoulder. I heartily recommend it to anyone wishing to improve their skills in composing a well balanced images that engage and hold the viewers' attention.

Ok, Smallspace I hope you didn't disappear again! :-) You have no idea that how sad I am that I couldn't find those pictures from my experiment. I'd been enjoying this thread. I'm posting this picture, which isn't the final version. Sadly enough my 9hr of render (last night) crashed after it was done! :( Anyway, this picture has volumetric atmosphere and sun directly behind the camera. I implied the 3 point lighting settings. Sun gives very soft light, 17 lights does the work. In the final version I applied DOF and worked on the shadow and reflection a lot. Which is lacking in this pre-finished version. Now, the question you asked about the Volumetric atmosphere ... I don't know whether my impression of it would make much sense to an artist of your caliber; but here goes anyhow. I found DOF comes very good in Volumetric atmosphere, I got better result of it in Vol. Atmos. then regular atmosphere. And the rest is just simply pain! :-) Bill, thanks for the advice. Already ordered it last night; hoping may be someday I'll get a better critique from Smallspace! :-)

I can recommend the book Bill mentioned without reservation. I have had it since the seventies and have used it constantly, although looking at my images you would never believe it! Thanks Bill.

Hi Nish, Still here...just taking it easy on the weekend. You're already going to get a better critique :) There's a lot of good flow to this picture. The high contrast between the left flamingo and the background pulled my eye right to it. From there, the shape of its body moved me straight over to the right flamingo. Pause for a moment, then down the strong line of its neck to the highlight on its head...another area of high contrast. From there the nice organic swirls of the flamingo's reflections pull me to the left, then the dark area below the left flamingo's head pulled me up the left side, stopping at its beak, because of the shift from dark to light at that point. The line of the beak keeps me from moving back to its body and instead directs my attention to the upper left. The line of the brightest reed moves me in a curve that leads along the top edge and over to the right corner where more reeds take me down the right edge to the right flamingo's tail. The tail points me to the prominent reflection of one of the reeds, and a near straight line takes me from there to the first reflection of the tail, to the second reflection of the tail, and finally to the body reflection at the very bottom of the picture. Since this reflection touches the edge, it leaves me with a way to step out of the picture. This outward spiraling flow is highly prized as being one of the most interesting ways of composing a work for the viewer. It's usually done by deliberately placing areas of color or contrast in a mathematical formula call "The Golden Mean", however, you've managed to the same thing more with line and shape. Really good balance of vertical and horizontal as well, and I see you've moved your primary horizontal zone higher on the picture so as to not divide it in half. Bravo. Really good job. 17 lights? I hope you had "cast shadows" turned off on most of them. I don't think I've ever used more than 3 or 4. You'll have to forgive me. I've missed something. What does "DOF" stand for? To be honest, if I didn't know that was volumetric, I would never have guessed it to be anything but a normal atmosphere. -SMT

Thanks for the review. I'm really very much enjoying this thread. :-) On this pictures I didn't turn off the shadows, probably that's why there are several reflection on the water. On the final version I tried to control the reflection a bit. But not sure anymore whether I should, after reading your review. :-) DOF is distance of Field. I found that it's easy to get good reasult in volumetric settings creating distance of field, applying blur or fog. On the other hand it does a poor job on reflections, even with higher settings. Again, don't know how much that'll help you; as I'm quiet novice at this. But, your review was very very educative for me! Greatly appreciated! :-)

Q&D Image sun behind the camera, volum atmosphere, no extra lights.

Volum light options, used with image above

Hi Nish - I'm sure you'll find the book interesting and inspiring. Love that flamingo picture, by the way.