Ok I want to combine 3d buildings into a 2d photo, some sort of a matte painting. I was planning in using Bryce for the rendering, it should be fairly simple to match the lighting before importing to Photoshop. I could always eyeball the perpective of the 2d photo in Bryce but I was wondering if there is a method to do this more accurately; I know that the more expensive software has the tools to do this but I have Bryce.

 

Thanks,

 

Andres

If it a static photo, that would be more difficult as you would want to match the existing perspective lines. What would probably help this is to know the camera lens' specs (focal info) so you can try and convert that for use in Bryce (Bryce FOV)

Here is a link to a (f)mm to Bryce conversion table;
http://www.castironflamingo.com/tutorial/camerareference/index.html

As far as Matte Painting, it is easier to have seperate (photo) elements instead of a locked down 'plate' as you can manipulate these elements around your 3D renders as in the steretypical scene of say, a sci-fi building in the midst of a mountainous jungle, etc.

The more obviosu difficult scene would be 3D buildings inset into an photo of pre-existing buildings as the eye would have numerous comparison points.

I didn't understand a thing AS said.  He still rules. 

Could you distort the 2d images and resultant Bryce renders as layers in PS with the "pick" tool?

Thank you guys! First of all thanks for the link, AS that is really helpful! The only problem would be some of my shots were done a while ago on film so I don't have the specs, the other problem would be if I am combining it with lets say a stock photo of a place I have not visited. I am worried a bit to use the transform tool or other perpective adjusting tool because of the degradation of pixels. So distorting the 2d images would have to be done very carefully. I was thing if I am using on of my photos as a plate it would be eaiser to manipulate the 3d render based on that photo. If I had a photo of the Amazon jungle and I want to insert the sci-fi building it would be easier to mamipulate that 3d building that the plate of the Amazon jungle. If the photo is stock or film then I would not have the specs of the lens etc.

I have always been with the same school of opinion, I don't like to over transform photo's, because of the possibility of degredation of pixels. Sometimes it has to be done depending on the project but in what I am reading about what you are doing here, I agree.

Basically, all this will come down to eyeballing it in Bryce.

Off the top of my head, if I were doing this, what I would do to help me "see" the perspective of the photo, is to take the photo into an image editor (photoshop, psp, gimp, etc.) and I would place one white layer over the photo with an opacity of say, 80% and then create another layer over those two on which I would start marking the corners of the buildings and connecting the dots AND extending those lines outward in all directions.

Attached is a (uncomplete) example of what I mean. I drew just a few lines.

Take that edited photo in Bryce and I would start taking cubes and make them fit in there and look appropriate. The cubes would be representations of the 3D buildings which can be switched out later as could the photo. (I would also try use cubes that had a grid pattern on them to hopefully, more easily see the perspective matching)

Link; [www.kirkdunne.com/files/perspective_03.zip](http://www.kirkdunne.com/files/perspective_03.zip)

Cubes with a grid pattern.

Here is a scenefile with a grid material I use for such things. Inside the Mat Lab you will see that the DTE material has to be wrapped and scaled differently when used on a cube versus the infinite plane although it whould alwys be seamless. The scenefile is .br7

Thanks! When you say taking the photo into Bryce , you mean you used as a backdrop to match those lines? I import the photo grid and then enlarge it to serve as guide?

Yup, I would use the edited photo as a backdrop and a guide. The photo would be the constant as would be the Bryce camera's (Director's or Camera's View) position (because it would be locked onto the photo, directly facing it) (The Bryce document size would also be the same size/aspect ratio of the photo).

The variables would be;
The Camera/View FOV.
The attributes of the cube (size and poistion in 3d space)

ALL of this are just guesstimates by me, as this would be the intial route I would think to try, If I HAD to do this. But lol, I wish you the BEST of luck since what you are doing is the reverse of what I normally do and you're doing it blind (no lens data and no camera position info)

Thank you! I think I am better of retaking the photos so that I can have the all the info and then use the formula of the link you send me :)

Matching up 3D to real world photos or video is tricky pretty much no matter what, lol.

Interesting subject! I don't think I have anything to add to what AS has already said, but if at all possible, I'm curious to see some work-in-progress shots, the final render, and the final photoshopped result...

I think that should be an interesting case for anyone here on the forum.

I have managed to combine simple settings of 3d environments with photos for my mother ceramics but perpective is always difficult.

Straightforward is not that difficult.

But when the photo has an angle then it is more difficult for me.

Sweet Renders (and comps)!! Really beautiful. :o)

Thanks!!!

Quote - Interesting subject! I don't think I have anything to add to what AS has already said, but if at all possible, I'm curious to see some work-in-progress shots, the final render, and the final photoshopped result...

I think that should be an interesting case for anyone here on the forum.

Yeah, me too.

And I'd like to see the scifi building one especially, that really appeals to me.

I should have checked this thread again.  Beautiful renders, goido.