There's a picture in the Bryce Hot 20 called "Departure" by Hythshade. I won't go into the engaging subject matter and brilliant composition, or the masterful lighting that so exquisitely evokes the mood, or even the technically perfect execution and assembly of the scene's models. But rather, how the #@$***!!! did he get it to look like a painting? I mean, can Bryce do that? There's no mention of post work. If there is post work, I'd love to see the render sans-post, just as an educational exercise. Wow!

<strong>bandolin</strong><br />
[Former 3DS Max forum coordinator]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php">Homepage</a> ||
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/sitemail/">SiteMail</a> ||
<a href="http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=70375">
Gallery</a> || <a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?username=bandolin">
Freestuff</a>
<p><em>Caution: just a hobbyist</em></p>

In all honesty I can't see that it looks like a painting.

Not much for painting.
I can see most of the postwork & a good guess at what was used, but there is no more in that scene than the one above it, or the one below it. ;)

Message edited on: 09/23/2004 11:35

I think bandolin may be referring to the soft effect that the artist is getting by using a high setting on the haze.
It doesn't look like it has been postworked very much if at all (to me).

Message edited on: 09/23/2004 11:38

Stunning work however it was done.

OK, you guys have a better eye than me. However, surely the models of the cottages weren't done in Bryce. They must've been made in something else like (dare I say it) Wings 3D? Upon closer inspection, I do have to comment on the unrealistic looking trees. (I hate critisizing something I couldn't even approach at accomplishing).

<strong>bandolin</strong><br />
[Former 3DS Max forum coordinator]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php">Homepage</a> ||
<a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/sitemail/">SiteMail</a> ||
<a href="http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=70375">
Gallery</a> || <a href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?username=bandolin">
Freestuff</a>
<p><em>Caution: just a hobbyist</em></p>

There is a lot of postwork in it, and it shows.

Now i am not a bryce-purist, but there are limits to what you can call Bryce and what is no longer Bryce anymore. Way to often do you work in the Bryce gallery being called Bryce while there is clearly only a small part being really done in Bryce.

There are two pictures in the Hot 20 at the moment of wich i have serious doubt if they have been done in Bryce at all, its certainly not the modelling.

There are three pictures wich are made with Mojo-world with a bryce thingie pasted on to it.

A poser (a good one that is) being rendered in Bryce is not so much Bryce work for me.

Then there are several questionables of wich i have serious doubts abouts. (hence terms as vote-rigging and calling friends & family to vote no matter how poor your work is)

Actually there are only four (maybe 5) artists in the Hot 20 at the moment that really belong there, and they should have a better vote-rating than they have now.

I am glad to see "Fables" in there. I just love that pic.! :) I just looked again....there are quite a few familiar names in there! Great work all of you!

Message edited on: 09/23/2004 15:07

@RobertJ: Partly I agree with you - but only partly. How many percent of a render has to be done in Bryce to call it a 'Bryce'-picture? Hom many objects are allowed to come from other programs? How much post- and filterwork would be still ok? I for example use a lot of non-Bryce-objects but I never made a complete picture with another program. Under this point of view most of our works would have to be posted in the mixed-medium-section, so far you're right. But imagine, if everybody would do so the mixed medium gallery would explode and you would completely lose the total view. In my (humble g) opinion it's not so important from where the objects came from, it's the idea, the effect and the whole composition which counts. If somebody puts together loads of individual parts from Cinema, from Poser and from wheresoever in Bryce and does the final render there, I would call it a Bryce-pic.

bandolin...I wonder what would happen if you IM'd and asked Hythshade about this? ;)

I would say if the assembly, shading/texturing, lighting, and render are all done in a particular program, then it can be said to be done in that program.

If you take someone else's human model, for instance, add a light or two to the scene, render it, then spend hours afterward in photoshop hand-painting the hair, clothing, background, atmosphere, and touching up or painting in the lighting, highlights, and shadows... then that work ceases to be a 3D render at some point and becomes a hand-painted 2D work. The 3D portion was really only used as a template. Works like that belong in the 2D section I feel.

However, some people seem to think a 3D render should contain NO postwork at all. Well, that's very minimalist. Even the highest end professionally animated 3D FX shots contain SOME level of post. In fact, most contain hours and hours of post.

The key is to get the MOST out of the 3D program you're using. KNOW YOUR TOOLS. If you can do it in the render, then do it, and save yourself the time in post. Alot of the time wasted in post can be done in the resident 3D app if only the user had more knowledge of their tool. However, if the result you're looking to achieve is EASIER to do in post, and you have a deadline or time restrictions on the work, then POST IT IS! LOL!

But just about everything will require SOME level of post... be it color correction or video editing.

Message edited on: 09/23/2004 19:19

I'm not really seeing ANY painterly post-work in the mentioned picture. I see haze and grain from what might be a low quality volumetric (an easy trick I use myself) and jpg compression. AgentSmith

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=769522&Start=1&Artist=Hythshade&ByArtist=Yes

Hello everybody. I have to say I'm a little surprised at all the attention my pic is getting. Actually I always feel that way about all my images. I just can't tell you how much it's appreciated. Rendorosity has been very kind to me. The truth is this particular image had really very little postwork in it, which is unusual for me. Bryce does has some serious limits that can only be fixed in post. All I did in this one though are as follows:

The road with the reflections is almost all bryce with the exception of the deep ruts in the road which could have been done in bryce, but I was being lazy. I added a ground plane with the wet rock texture, and bumped the reflection all the way to max. I could have used a terrain, and cut the wheel tracks in the terrain but like I said...Lazy.

The model of the house is from Ironhart purchased from a while back God rest his soul. I only hope I did him justice. I added lighting inside the house that shines out through the windows reflecting off the wet rock texture.

The trees are obviously bryce trees, and they look awful. Once again I was to lazy to do them in Amorphium. no postwork here.

The rest is heavy haze, dark shadows, and lighting. Done well theres no need for postwork in this area.

The people I painted hair on, and dodged one of the characters rear-end to add some light reflection behind her.

Then the finish is to add noise to the entire render in Photoshop, to dirty it up, and get rid of that freshly rendered 3d look. Sometimes when I am texturing, I will dirty up the textures before applying them to give them some depth, and add to the realism.

Really thats all there was to it, nothing special:-)
The whole process I did in about 10 hours total.
I'm sure I forgot something, but If I did please feel free to ask me anything.

Thanks a million
Michael (Hythshade)

Message edited on: 09/23/2004 22:14

Very cool, thanks for the info. :o) AS

It is difficult to decide when a Bryce picture stops being a Bryce picture. We've discussed this since I joined R'osity. Since I have two pictures in the hot 20 I've got to assume that at least one, probably both, you (RobertJ) don't think should be there. I can assure you , both pictures were modelled with Bryce primitives and rendered in Bryce. I do play around with them in Photoshop. But I think I'd rather post a picture that I'm happy with rather than pure Bryce for the sake of it. I did use a lot of filters on my Venice picture. But I don't think it detracts from the fact that I spent 6 hours modelling in Bryce, 4 hours rendering in Bryce and 30 minutes in Photoshop. The pipes picture was even longer to model and render (softshadows blah) and even less time in Photoshop. I consider them Bryce rather than photoshop. Saying that though, I do agree that you can't just paste a picture of the Mona Lisa to a cube then render it in Bryce and call it Bryce. But tonal, contrast and colour adjustments and even detail work like highlights and fixing problems I think is fine. It's a judgement call. On the other hand (Is that 3 now) you may have considered that my pictures are valid for the Hot20, in which case, I'll shut up.

drawbridgep,
I think zandar said it correctly. If it's rendered in Bryce, it's a Bryce pic...Very few if anyone models everything in Bryce. I would have to disagree that postwork of any amount stops it from being a bryce image. All it does IMHO is make it a bryce image with paint on it ;-)In the end does it really matter what the image was rendered in anyway? Should we just vote on images based solely on what programs were used? or is it more important that the image is pleasing to look at?
And I like your images very much.

Message edited on: 09/24/2004 10:58

Drawbridge, you are actually one of those who should be HOT 20. But i have to be carefull, not to name anyone, i made that mistake once here.

I think what Zandar was saying is that even pros use postwork to enhance the images or videos produced in the 3D package, but when you paint in far more stuff than you render, then it's really a 2D work with 3D as a template.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=688486&Start=19&Artist=tjohn&ByArtist=Yes

"...I do agree that you can't just paste a picture of the Mona Lisa to a cube then render it in Bryce and call it Bryce." Phil, is this meant as a sly dig at me? :^)

LOL @ tjohn!!

Ha! I missed that picture, so no it wasn't a dig at you. Plus that's pretty clever terrain work, so I'll let it slide this time. :-)

:^)