Wallpaper Wips

[Vorporeal]

The intensity of the table looks good, but it might be better with a less noisy texture? You could make it ironic and use a nice granite countertop...

Those renders (JarBrain) now take over 24 hours to do, unless I do a lower quality preview, of course

You know, you could always just turn down reflection/refraction depth to 2 or 3, turn off global illumination, and do a quick render...

EDIT: Oh, and turn off AA/supersampling/multisampling. That'll make it a couple of times faster.

(I wrote a ray tracer for one of my classes this semester - you can do a lot of tweaking of rendering speed vs. graphical accuracy. Not to mention that for something like testing various textures for the table surface, doing renders with very inaccurate but fast lighting is perfectly acceptable.)

 

[wardred]

The reflection onto the brain is definitely less distracting in this version. I don't know if there's a way to do the lab style white table but end up with a similar toned down reflection on jar brain, but if not, or if it requires too much tweaking, keep this version imo.

There seem to be less shadows under her brows then before. Did you lighten that up? I like how All I want for Christmas is turning out.

Sorry to hear about the computer crashing. I built a computer for somebody where the heat sink on the video card wasn't attached quite right, and eventually you'd get graphics glitches and a full crash, very frustrating.

______________________________

I ended up staying up way too late Sunday and totally crashed yesterday. :-b. I'm happy with most of what I've done, definite progress on the Colonel Blender tutorial - most of her torso and legs are done properly, I believe, just needs a little work with the - hate to say it - barbie like neuter hips and crotch area. Some of the mesh is doing...odd things it shouldn't be.

I'm happy with the rest of it though. Torso and legs all seem to line up properly, match up pretty closely with the reference image - she has some LONG legs - and define the muscles I want defined. Fix the one area I'm having trouble with, and I think the bust is going to be the next challenge. Not something the original captain blender had to contend with... :-b

Cheers!

 

[Monk]

unless I do a lower quality preview, of course

You know, you could always just ... do a quick render...

Yup, I do. And I could post back the results for each of those tests here, to see if it's closer to what other people want.

The reflection onto the brain is definitely less distracting in this version. I don't know if there's a way to do the lab style white table but end up with a similar toned down reflection on jar brain, but if not, or if it requires too much tweaking, keep this version imo.

There's a bunch of ways to tweak it, but one of the problems (if "problem" is the right term) is, to search desperately for a better term, inclination. There's so much I want to do, both in terms of what we may see here and in terms of the rest of life, that concentrating too much on this particular image doesn't feel worthwhile *right now* - especailly since I'm happy either with the distraction of the white table (something I was happy to have - partly because it makes the viewer pay more attention and concentrate a bit) or with the "kitchen worksurface". I don't have a third table top that I, personally, want to try out - those two surfaces have done all I've felt interested in doing, so I'd rather not over-think it when my heart simply isn't in it (and the kitchen surface table top was a bit of a stretch which irked when I couldn't use the PC for something else).

There seem to be less shadows under her brows then before. Did you lighten that up? I like how All I want for Christmas is turning out.

I think it's probably finished turning but yeah, I've been tweaking the lighting and the shadows. I couldn't quite get the final result I wanted without a little post work, just touching up a few minor issues that it's easier to paint than it is to fix in 3D, but overall I'm quite pleased with it at the moment - almost can't wait to get more effort put into something else - probably the Doom Homage, as I've enjoyed the heck out of Doom and Quake type games on my PC and would love to enjoy them more portably (I kow there's all sorts of doomage and quakage on the GP2X, but I haven't really enjoyed them using those controls).

Sorry to hear about the computer crashing. I built a computer for somebody where the heat sink on the video card wasn't attached quite right, and eventually you'd get graphics glitches and a full crash, very frustrating.

Sounds like it's going well - which is great 3D stuff can be tremendously rewarding, at least on a personal level

I tend (only TEND mind) to find the reverse - if I build it then (aside from 1 PC that drove me nuts) it works. If I buy it... argh! And returning stuff under warranty that crashes only intermittantly? My pain quad core PC has supposedly had the motherboard, PSU, ram, and video card replaced. But it still crashes (and it's not my mains - I run off a UPS which should smooth that out).

I'm happy with the rest of it though.

 

[RavenX]

And the latest "All I Want For Christmas":

Spoiler

plus extra large version (only 1600 by 960, though it should paste nicely onto a larger screen IMHO):

http://i50.tinypic.com/v58zuq.png

Awesome! Thanks! Now that I have that as my laptop background, it makes me wonder if I could get "Pandora" playing with her Pandora in that same size if you can spare the render time?

 

[RavenX]

Dupe post, sorry.
Some admin please delete.

 

[GreenDream]

When I finally get my Pandora...It's sonna be hard choosing which one of these to put as my wallpaper!

I especially like the girl with the tatt

 

[Monk]

Now that I have that as my laptop background, it makes me wonder if I could get "Pandora" playing with her Pandora in that same size if you can spare the render time?

The render time on those isn't as bad actually, since it isn't filled with reflective and refractive surfaces, but I don't need to re-render. Most - not all, but most - of these images have purposefully been rendered and (wehre needed) post-worked at 1600 * 960. So here's the topped version:

http://i46.tinypic.com/jrurzl.png

and the topless version:

http://i50.tinypic.com/ht9vme.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/20j32h0.png

Obviously, sinc eone of the reasons for working at double size is so that my postwork "paint-by-hand" gets smoothed into the render and becomes harder to see, you may find it easier to see where I've edited the images. However, I hope it won't be immediately obvious and that "at full resolution" the images work well.

If I ever do re-render this scene, I have one tweak that I'd like to try to see if it improves the image - in fact, I MAY just give it a go if I get the chance today. Not sure how today will work as I'm getting all bunged up/coldy again

Oh - and thanks Wade-newb. I've been enjoying making most of these, especailly where I'm playing with software I'm not familiar with (which includes all the girlie pictures prior to the Christmas one).

Ta,

 

[Monk]

Nice renders.
But the black (or unicolor…) background is a bit hard for the eyes.

I'm sorry you find that to be the case - it's a fairly concious decision, based on how cluttered the edges feel to me when you overlay icons on top of already "busy" graphics - so even when I have added detail in right to the edge - as I did with "All I Want For Christmas" at one point - I end up scaling it back because the extra detail actually irritates me

"Night At The Aquarium" actually starts out as a screen-filing scene and had to beaten into submission to reduce the detail at the edges (notably mostly the left-hand edge). A quirk of mine, perhaps?

 

[mali]

"Night At The Aquarium" actually starts out as a screen-filing scene and had to beaten into submission to reduce the detail at the edges (notably mostly the left-hand edge). A quirk of mine, perhaps?

Makes sense in my opinion. I like the reduced style, it sharpens and increases density. I don't like cluttered art at all. The christmas render is not my thing but in the aquarium and the gothic pics it's very pleasing

 

[Monk]

I especially like the girl with the tatt

I've been posting larger versions to the first post of this thread today, partly to disguise the lack of progress I'm making (it's turned out to be a 2lie-down-in-bed" day so far today so not much getting done). Girl with the Pandora Tatt has received a minor makeunder as a result, from the already-rendered images being composited together in a slightly different way:

and there's an absolutely huge version now too:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2cco2rk.png

Offhand I can't recall why she's rendered at that size, unless mali had wanted a large version so I was rendering at twice the size I always intended to deliver the image? Anyway, it's big.

 

[hells_dark]

the extra detail actually irritates me

ho I understand that.

I was not asking for some details, just, a smooth gradient, something with a kind of « floor »…
(maybe a kind of "blur" on the background)

 

[Monk]

the extra detail actually irritates me

ho I understand that.

I was not asking for some details, just, a smooth gradient, something with a kind of « floor »…
(maybe a kind of "blur" on the background)

Ah yes, I must admit I'd wondered vaguley about that as an option as well, but haven't worked on any gradients or swirls largely as the time I've been putting in has been to the 3D itself. Most of these images are produced with a fairly transparent background, however, so it ought to be reasonably easy to slide some kind of low contrast pattern in there. Something for me to think about, perhaps - tho I fear OpenPandora may want to close the book on wallpapers soon in order to finalise what's going onto the beasts. Which makes me want to press ever onwards to more experimental stuff to see what I can find there of interest to me (or just to get a move on with another scene - so far today I have failed to get the Pandora logo showing up in a pleasing manner in the Doom Homage project, for example).

 

[Vorporeal]

Hrm, the material on tat girl's top always caught me off guard - the whole thing seems too... flat?, and the reflection just looks totally out of place... (specularity too high?)

 

[Monk]

It's extremely flat, and the model itself is frankly rubbish IMHO, which tends to lend itself towards extremely ugly highlights. I know, I tried a few ways of producing a feeling of greater depth in the thing without resorting to just postworking it ("cheating") but at the end of the day the clothing was there for one reason and one reaon only - and that's to prevent her from showing her nekkedness in all its pale glory. I may have quit on the image early because others seemed fairly happy with it, but I'm pretty sure I felt like moving on and the dress could be flatter and not bother me TOO much.

At present, apart from resting up and working on newer images, the thing that interests me most in this area is the idea of slightly graduated backgrounds - either REALLY boringly graduated or possibly swirly patterns. Basically, I need something I can work on comfortably from bed, and that might be it! Something to think about, anyway. If anyone else fancies doing some swirly backgrounds - nothing too interesting, just a bar above bland - to hide behind the main images, please feel free. I should be able to make copies with transparent backgrounds available quite easily. Bear in mind that, with the odd exception (like Aquarium and Tatt girl) I've been working mostly at 1600 * 960 rather than 800 * 480.

One other concern about any kind of less bland/solid background is that it's likely to icnrease file size, but I'll see what's what if I make anything I think is worth putting behind Pandora/whatever.

Ta,

 

[Mr.Confuzed]

So here's the topped version:

http://i46.tinypic.com/jrurzl.png

and the topless version:

http://i50.tinypic.com/ht9vme.png

Anyone else notice that her straps are showing above her shoulders in the second one?

 

[Monk]

So here's the topped version:

http://i46.tinypic.com/jrurzl.png

and the topless version:

http://i50.tinypic.com/ht9vme.png

Anyone else notice that her straps are showing above her shoulders in the second one?

Haha! Brilliant! :lol:

Fixed one at http://i50.tinypic.com/20j32h0.png but that shows the perils of storing all your images in one file to composit at will


Thanks for the heads up

 

[amf66]

What I want to know is why there's a squirrel in the one with the Christmas tree!

 

[Trip]

What I want to know is why there's a squirrel in the one with the Christmas tree!

Who cares? the squirrel rocks

 

[wardred]

Feet, toes, quads, oh my! There has to be a trick to "making quads" from triangles that I just don't get. I have all quads now, but some divisions in the foot in...odd places. And the foot is a mutant now while I tried to get that right, though that should be easier to fix.

Edit: grammar. Never mind the <- sentence fragment and lack of caps...

 

[Monk]

What I want to know is why there's a squirrel in the one with the Christmas tree!

Who cares? the squirrel rocks

You guys even NOTICED there was a squirrel? :lol:

He's there because he wants to be. It's cold outside, and he came in with the tree. Tho I could have made him toonier, I just liked the idea of having a squirrel in there, holding his nuts.

Feet, toes, quads, oh my! There has to be a trick to "making quads" from triangles that I just don't get. I have all quads now, but some divisions in the foot in...odd places. And the foot is a mutant now while I tried to get that right, though that should be easier to fix.

Yes and no. Some mesh editors - like Cinema 4D - will have both a "triangulate" and an "untriangulate" option, where it attempts to study the geometry and make quads for you (or possibly lkarger n-gons, I have not checked). However, some 3D software is shy of quads, and for good reason.

The theory goes that if you use triangles then, even though they can produce some rather odd looking and often assymetrical meshes (very bad for wireframe game objects IMHO) at least each face or facet is exactly that - 3 distinct points, no matter where placed, cannot describe anything BUT a flat surface if the connecting lines are straight. Four points or more though and you get into a situation where it is POSSIBLE, even just by math rounding errors, to end up with a convex or concave surface instead of a flat one, simple because the 3 (or more) vertices do not share a place *exactly*. In those situations you may have to do more "by hand" editing than you would like, and it must be said that if you have quads that are convex/concave then you cannot RELY on all render engines rendering it correctly *you can get some weird artefacts, and some older engines will just refuse to render them and tell you off for being naughty!).

Sorry I'm not around much at the moment, I overdid things and I'm paying for it in pain levels, so I'm trying to back off a bit, rest the head/nose more.