Hey ................ That's lookin' good!

It would appear that you nodes how to do it. ;=]

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

It doesn't look like Bryce, either.

It does look like a bryce sky, now if someone could make the clouds animated... Poser 5 can probably do everything that bryce can, with the right fractal noise even clouds could probably be made for the sky.

" It doesn't look like Bryce, either." just add water and some chrome dolphins :)

It doesn't look like a Bryce render, and the sky has no atmospheric haze.

If it isn't Bryce, why are the eyes black?

I've never seen anyone else generate an atmosphere of that complexity and in Poser 5. It's beautiful. Stewer, I wonder how you did it? :-)

Yeah it is not Bryce...........and it shows. I still use Poser only for posing figures for my Bryce scenes and for when I need a figure animated.

nice coat....

So what would you say is missing for "that Bryce look"?

This is a bit like asking how does tea taste different from coffee. Different render engines have different styles, and with a little practice you can often recognize what app a picture has been rendered in, though I wouldn't claim to be 100% accurate in this. I would certainly say that Poser, Bryce, Vue and Cinema tend to be recognizable; I don't have enough experience of other apps to say. Describing the differences is not easy. Cinema renders tend to be very sharp and clear. Bryce renders are vivid, except when badly lit, when they suffer from a very characteristic hardness. Vue ones are slightly faded looking. Poser renders are rather flat and a bit tacky. That's terribly simplified, but it's as well as I can do right now.

Message edited on: 08/20/2004 18:06

"Different render engines have different styles, and with a little practice you can often recognize what app a picture has been rendered in, though I wouldn't claim to be 100% accurate in this."

Most renderers (with some exceptions, like the P4 renderer) are based on the same theories, and can be made to do exactly the same things or mimic the same effects. Therefor, I think it's the artist's own technique (or lack thereof) that makes the source of an image recognizable. What I mean by that is, many users of a particular 3D software tend to stick with a certain predisposed meathodology/technique to using that software (be it a lack of extended knowledge or pure laziness), which has been established by someone else before them. For instance, people using Poser often times reuse the same pre-fab lighting or poses that makes renders recognizable as having been done with that software. Some Bryce users tend to use pre-fab materials or atmospheres that have been used in abundance before, which makes those renders recognizable as having been done in Bryce. There's things people use in other apps that can be easily spotted by most people as well.

But how, for instance, would you tell the difference between a Lightwave or 3dsMax render if both were using the same HDR image to light the scene with GI? Or if both were using the same direct lighting rig? And how is a Cinema render distinguishable from either of these? I don't think there would be any logical way to tell them apart. Message edited on: 08/20/2004 23:35

stewer said: So what would you say is missing for "that Bryce look"? Make the ground a reflective surface with a slight turbulence displacement, and add a plane prop with a displacement node set to about 5 in the background. Optionally, also surround Judy with reflective gold spheres. Then post the image elsewhere, and ask if anyone can tell what it was rendered in, then wait for the 1000 replies of how obvious it is that Bryce was used.

That would be 1000 replies from people making very superficial judgements. maxxxmodelz's point is cogent. With the high end apps that may be correct. At the low end, where some apps leave out certain features, it may be less valid. But, for an argument in support of the point, I suspect that the reason why Vue renders tend to look a bit faded is due to the default balance of diffuse vs ambient in Vue materials. If one went through every material and changed this, one would get a different look, but not many people are prepared to do that.

maxxxmodelz and Phantast are right - most of the renderers are all the same, it's only a few default settings that cause a different look. What makes Poser 4 look like Pose 4 (aside from that many people don't know how to use the lights in any app) is that most users don't adjust the highlight settings. I remember posting a Poser image with stronger/sharper highlights to the gallery with people promptly commenting that it looked like Bryce ;)