With the recent threads featuring Marko Dabrovnic's tremendous cathedral model, I thought I'd see if it would respond to True Ambience. I'm delighted to say it does:

Six lights with soft shadows. One 'parallel' outside to represent the sun; one in the tower-dome area; one in the altar area; and three along the ceiling arch. The rest of the lighting is via True Ambience at 64rpp. I'll post another later showing the scene without True Ambience.

Render time was about a day and a half - but there was plenty of other activity on this computer during that time, including further Bryce experiments (I love Bryce5).

Other than a slight crop each side, and jpeg compression, this is exactly how it came out of Bryce.

Attached Link: http://vray.info/assets/sib01.jpg

I am tinkering with this in C4D at the moment. Will post an image (radiosity) here if anyone interested (for comparison purposes)

Yes, and also your render settings would be nice to view too. I think EVERYONE in this forum should take an interest in radiosty and other methods of GI calculations, since Bryce 6 will most likely have them available.

WOAH! Beautiful!

gorgeous!!

nice renders both of them 2 min for each frame wow you are rubing it in there he ? ;)

Immpressive PJF......where is this model from though?

I really need to get that model :)

the TA render "feels" better in my opinion.

The one without TA is dark and "cold"... which may be fine for certain things. I think it's definitely worth it to use TA in this case. Did you add "grain" to the first image in post, or is that some kind of artifacting as a result of using the TA? "nice renders both of them 2 min for each frame wow you are rubing it in there he ? ;)" Hehe... well, if Bryce 6 gets photon mapping and some speed enhancements, it should be able to do the same thing (fairly quick GI calcs). Something to possibly look forward to. ;-)

I just noticed a sampling artifact in my main volumetric light. Re-render in progress. Will have to post tonight. Will have a basic and radiosity image set. Gotta get my butt off to work now though.

ROTFL, I think Daz may do wonders with Bryce long term, but Photon Mapping in their first major release may be pushing it.

Cool render PJF, the influence of TA is quite impressive! (when compared with TA-less render) I like the idea of photonmapping, it would be great to have that in bryce 6.

Wow,great post! That cathedral is amazing!!

Attached Link: no TA 1 hour render

My only crit is that the ceiling is too bright, there is only light coming through the windows to light that area of the model. TA is a hard tool to weild. It seems that generally speaking it either brightens the scene too much or grains it out so to speak. Not to mention the render times. I think that generally speaking in bryce it's easier to just use many filler lights / rings / domes for a much faster render.

The link I posted above although nowhere near perfect was done in only 30 minutes and rendered in an hour. Certainly not 'true' GI or true ambience. And parts don't look quite right, but for the render times I'm starting to think that TA isn't always worth it.

One last Q, how'd you avoid fasceting wow bad spelling.. on the ceiling?

Message edited on: 09/10/2004 09:55

TA does look good and in the hands of a master can produce some stunning results If DAZ does nothing else other than decrease the render time so that we can render a 6 hour picture in 6 minutes, I'll be happy. I'd even be happy if 6 hours reduced to 60 minutes. At the moment, I lack the patience to render premium settings. I do feel that even when Pro-Render comes out, I'm not sure I'll have the pateince to wait a day for a render, no matter how good it looks. I might have to wait for Bryce 6 before trying Pro-Render to it's full potential. Even an 8 hour render I did the other day was really trying my patience. I even went out and mowed the lawn and then cleaned the kitchen. So my wife is probably one person who doesn't mind the render engine being slow. ;-)

I've just got to thinking about the top pic in this thread...It looks like a photograph, but what would complete the illusion would be something outside the main window, maybe a skyscaper/highrise building.....? con-trail, plane.....

Responses in order: maxxxmodelz: The only real difference is in render speed. You're not kidding! But Bryce is a slow renderer anyway, so it's no surprise that its stab at 'radiosity' takes an age. I did this test because of the opportunity to compare TA results with examples of radiosity, etc, at the cathedral competition website (and I think Bryce is amongst the best in that regard). A day and a half render is more than I'd normally be willing to put up with. twistedbolt the TA render "feels" better in my opinion. That's probably cos it is better ;-). The non-TA render was done purely to show how the exact same setup looks without TA, not as a complete look at what each method is capable of. maxxxmodelz: The one without TA is dark and "cold"... Indeed. But I think the relevant issue is the absolute darkness in most places. In a non-TA render the lights could be increased in intensity, and given a warm colour, but - importantly - the black areas would have remained completely black. Shadow ambience was 100% (nearly always is in my renders) and any surfaces not hit directly by lights would remain black - nada. True Ambient light bouncing is what illuminates the sidewalls and under the arches, etc. Did you add "grain" to the first image in post, or is that some kind of artifacting as a result of using the TA? The grain is due to using True Ambience at 64rpp (medium power ;-)). Using the highest setting would have resulted in a smoother appearance, but this thread wouldn't have happened until next week ;-). Normally I would have reduced the image size and in so doing the grain would have taken on the appearance of photographic film grain, adding to the reality. In this case I wanted to show the straight Bryce render, so it's full size, warts and all. The grain also allowed me to get away without using the bump channel, which adds to the render time. Ornlu 6 hours for the TA render or non TA? Hope you were talking about the TA. Nope, that's for the non-TA render I'm afraid (36 hours for the TA). There's six lights with premium effect soft shadows in a complex mesh. Maybe my computer is running slow. ; -) My only crit is that the ceiling is too bright, there is only light coming through the windows to light that area of the model. There are certainly faults with the image that I wouldn't have tolerated under normal circumstances. It was a case of judging overall composition as best as possible on a first render pass and then making a decision to go or not. Starting again wasn't an option once things got underway, especially as this is a 'technical' investigation. My spare time isn't that spare ;-). I think that generally speaking in bryce it's easier to just use many filler lights / rings / domes for a much faster render. I agree, and your images always demonstrate the potential of 'faking it' over 'doing it'. All else being equal, I would nearly always recommend people using Bryce as an art tool to use 'tricks' to 'fake' real world (and other) effects rather than spend time forcing Bryce to do it 'properly'. And I'd point to your images as evidence of the wisdom of that approach, since you are one of the best Brycers out there. But currently, my perverse pleasure in using Bryce is simply to explore what Bryce is capable of doing. It takes all sorts I suppose, but maybe someone can pick up something useful from these fiddlings. I was using light domes back in the days when Bryce2 and Pentium200s were all the rage. Once an extreme pervert, always an... The link I posted above although nowhere near perfect... Yeah, whaddaya playing at, coming in here with less than perfect? ;-) One last Q, how'd you avoid fasceting wow bad spelling.. on the ceiling? Oh, that was easy; I just didn't. It's there, but presumably its appearance is reduced 'sufficiently'. It doesn't seem any more obvious in your image, although the pillars do look unsmoothed. drawbridgep ...I'm not sure I'll have the pateince to wait a day for a render... On the other hand, you can have more than one instance of Bryce open at the same time with Bryce5, so it is possible to let a render chug away while getting on with other things, as I did with this one. Plus Bryce5 is very good at picking up a render after closing and opening a file, so it's fairly easy to schedule a long render around other important activities. TheBryster ...but what would complete the illusion would be something outside the main window, maybe a skyscaper/highrise building... The model does come with simple outside buildings (it's a whole complex) but I deleted them to have clear windows. Actually, to be 'photorealistic', having bright, 'washed out' windows is the correct approach. The exposure latitude of film generally isn't enough to provide for interior and exterior subjects to be properly lit at the same time (photographers and film makers will use filters to compensate if it is important enough). By convention, we tend to judge CGI work in comparison to photography, since both represent the 3D world seen by the eye/brain in a 2D format. In that context, my image would benefit from even more light saturation at the windows, plus some flaring, to bring it all together. And I've just thought of a way to do that in Bryce... Thanks for the compliments, comments and comparisons, all.

have to say that i'm actually amazed that was done in bryce. my continuing thought is "that can't be bryce, it's too clear and too good for just a few lights." mind you, i'm a big fan of the ornlu school of faking reality rather than deathkneeling the comp. All the same, amazing work! drac

How are you all getting the floor and the dome in the picture? I haven't figured out the correct camera angle/position to do that.

I cut the effect of the radiosity back from the standard as I didn't want to get things too bright. Unless there are internal light sources in a building of this type, it is darker except for where the windows shine.

Personal opinion, I think bryce stands up very well in competition. I am afraid that I just love the extra speed in C4D as well as some of the finer controls.

Message edited on: 09/11/2004 07:51

Yup, all excellent stuff... ...and just as I thought, TA looks "better" than standard Radiosity when used well (my opinion). Len. (ducks to avoid the flying debris)

Rayraz, I hope they're not Bryce primitive cubes you're using, because they're problematic under TA - that might explain the problem. Len.

Incarnadine- Your post is Bryce or Cinema 4d ?

Pumeco- Could you please saw me your pro-render version of the cathedral ?

Cinema 4D, mostly to give a comparison of non and radiosity vs TA from Bryce. TA stands up pretty well but IMO needs to be dimmed a bit. Either that or there need to be some interior lights visually (candles lanterns, etc.) to justify the brightness. Based on shooting in several cathedrals, the interior is dim generally with awesome light from the windows. Usually there are several scores of internal lighting to bring up the interior for the congregation. As we have not used these in all our models/renders - I trimmed back the radiosity settings to try not to lose that feeling of dim. I don't remember if you can adjust TA in this manner. Anyone know?

"I might have to wait for Bryce 6 before trying Pro-Render to it's full potential." (drawbridgep) Did I miss something while I was away for a few days? I'm a dumbo when it comes to lights, just don't understand the technicalities.....but of all the posted renders Ornlu's seems the warmest and most alive. A few shafts of light, and it would look like a warm photograph. Still, happy just to be eavesdropping and picking up crumbs of knowledge from underneath the masters' table ;o)

Incarnadine: TA stands up pretty well but IMO needs to be dimmed a bit... ...I don't remember if you can adjust TA in this manner. Anyone know? My image is as much a representation of my errors as it of what True Ambience can do. Much of the interior is too bright in relation to the light potential from the windows because I made a poor choice of light levels; and not due to any inherent fault of TA. As I stated above, I made a best assessment on the basis of first render passes and stuck with what looked best under those limiting circumstances. Restarting wasn't an option once the image began to become clear, due to the render time commitment involved. In this case, the illumination could be better balanced simply by reducing the intensity of the lights along the long ceiling. There would be no need to alter True Ambient levels at all. Reducing the ambient levels of materials is how you 'trim back' the effect of True Ambience. In the first image, levels are 100 percent. In my second image, levels are effectively at zero because I disabled True Ambience. This shows the range available. Based on shooting in several cathedrals, the interior is dim generally with awesome light from the windows. Yes, as I alluded to above, all these images would benefit from more light saturation at the windows to be 'photo-realistic'. With photography you could make the interior as light as you wanted by using longer exposure times. But the longer the exposure, the more light saturation at the windows there would be.

Quote thuleke, "Pumeco- Could you please saw me your pro-render version of the cathedral ?" - Well if someone could point me to the download, I'll give it some render-time tonight, if that's what you want.

Attached Link: http://hdri.cgtechniques.com/~sibenik2/

Thanks Aldaron, I'm on to it.

...no I'm not. I've just downloaded the .3ds version and the maps, but they are compressed into .rar files. The only decompressor I use is WinZip, and it refuses to work on these files. What to I need, and from where? Sorry, but general internet and stuff is not my strong point.

use winrar or stuffit :) those should unrar it :)

Attached Link: http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm

Thanks, I'm on to it - again :-)

God you guys are great!!!!!!!!!! Bravo!!

PJF- your points are well taken. (I can undertstand those rendertime issues. I just did a 8 1/2 hr radiosity image.) Your final image is much more accurate for the exposure needed.

Peter, I can also understand those render-times. But I've got a problem...a big problem. I started to render my scene with PR, and guess what the estimate was after the first pass... ...over 8 days, and that was with only one light in the entire scene (the sun). There were no lights inside the building, I just can't understand this at all. There's gotta be something wrong somewhere, so until I find out what it is, I'll have to cop-out of doing a render this time :-( aaarrggghhh!!!

8 days?!!!! PR is very slow...:( is PR the render solution? Ornlu time is 30 min.... PR or no PR ...that is the question

Aldaron - even without AA that looks great. there's something a bit funny going on under the windows, but the lighting is very convincing.