[balistic]

This took 11 days to render at 4000x4000 pixels, plus about four additional hours of painting and level monkeying. It contains no photographic elements. All textures are either painted by hand or procedural, and the lighting is straight raytracing (no GI or radiosity).

I plan to use the sixteen megapixel version for Iris prints. If anyone would be interested in possibly aquiring such a print, let me know, as I'm trying to gauge interest. A signed 24x24" print on Arches paper would probably cost about $250.

This piece still has compositional issues, but its much closer to what was originally in my head when I first began work on the older version.

Feedback is hugely appreciated.

[SporQ]

turborealism? lol

thats not true nova. they can both be in focus. short lens and small apeture. in fact, it could be taken with a pin-hole camera, they have "infinite" DOF. and i think you need to get your eyes checked

great render balistic, i just love those textures, and the nice evening light is so warm and inviting.

[balistic]

Nova: I agree about the diagonal beam, it probably isn't catching enough light.

The infinite focus is accurate though . . . if you look at most landscape photography, that's how its shot. I've seen some landscapes with focal blur, and they look very bizarre, as if they were miniature models.

I guarantee that if I added depth-of-field, it would look like miniature model of a old building, instead of a full-scale one.

themonkey: there's one in there that says "BRYCE SUX!" . . . some of the other tags were collected from members of the Animation:Master list.

SporQ: thanks. Hope I haven't coined a new buzzword

[Novacaptain]

After looking out the window I notice that you're right. The window itself isn't in focus tho. Only the things that are in the "far away" section of my visual field.

[Ben Barker]

Damn balistic, your photoreal Hash renders rock the house down. U R a SMARTY MAN!

[[Shizo]]

I liked the original version about x3.4 better.

[gArGOyLe^]

ack!! thats amaaazzing

[Pat]

I like both versions about the same --they've both got a lot going for them. The lighter version had cast shadows from the fallen beam, which IMO added a lot of visual interest. The newer soft shadows are pretty though and the removal of the beam shadow DOES helps the composition. The previous cast shadow from the beam crossed the crack in the wall so you had a HUGE "X" in the lower right hand corner. Now, with the shadow absent and the crack emphasized, the viewers eye is led back into the piece.

Over all the lighting scheme is more moody, which is good, but it obscures some of the incredible details on the rusted metal bits and ground clutter --details we use to establish the image's realism. And worse, it's harder to make out your signature now.

In contrast, the brighter version invited people to examine the details to authenticate its realism. Personally, I feel the darker one invites suspicion because it makes it harder to tell if it's real or not --and people account for that when trying to decide on an image's authenticity. Personally, I try to never underestimate reflected light and ambiant underlighting since it's such an easy and convincing way to making something pop a little more. I suspect that casual viewers are far less critical of this lighting since they've got very little objective experience with it. Also, it's just visually interesting. The first version had that.

One thing that I wholeheartedly applaud is the improved view from the open doorway. The new background is far more interesting compared to the foothills you had there previously. I'm torn on the craggy mountain peaks in the windows, but the doorway is amazing now.

Maybe none of this will be an issue at 4000x4000 on an Iris print. Its still stunning. My 2 cents.

-Pat

[NextGen]

you sure that background of the mountains isn't a picture? or maybe a bryce mountain rendering picture as the background? Cause it looks like a picture.
It looks great though. what was all this done in? lightwave, maya?
As for a 24x24" picture of this for $250, ehhh, you sure you wanna charge $250 for it? It's a good image, but $250 is quite rich to me.

[Novacaptain]

It somehow looks like it would've been easier to build a set in front of the mountains and take a picture hehe. It looks great.

The lighting on that big chunk of wood that goes out the windows doesn't seem to be corecctly affected by the light. I'd expect it to be more illuminated.

Another thing: the mountain and the building are both in focus. even though the distance that separates them appears to be quite vast. human eyes (at least mine) can't focalize on object so far apart, meither could a camera...unless it was a composition of two separate shots or some other technique...

[the_monkey]

i really enjoy the "jeff k" like tags all over the walls. good work, keep it up.

[balistic]

Nextgen: The mountains are painted over a basic 3D model. As I said, no photographic elements were used. As for $250 being expensive for a print, its really not. When I say "print", I don't mean poster, but rather a limited edition, gallery-quality giclee that will last a few hundred years under glass. Fellow artists aren't really my target market there . . . I'm after people with money

Thanks all . . . this is more feedback than I was expecting.

[Highfive]

Looks like some dangerous competition for Digital Blasphemy, balistic. That's an amazing and engaging 3d work! All the textures look so realistic, and I'm sure the individul grains of wood would be visible down to the pixel in the 4000 by 4000 prints.

As a suggestion, I think the sand still looks very smooth around where the two planks lean together on the left side of the building's walls. Maybe erosion does make the surface of the ground that smooth in places, but if that were the case, shouldn't it build up in areas around the grass?

[balistic]

Highfive: good idea, I'll consider that next time I do a scene with grass.

This was done in Animation:Master, for those who asked. Post work was done in Photo-Paint.

[Shiro_tengu]

some peoples crits make me laugh. balistic - your image is awesome.

[elam]

I have this image as my wallpaper.

My parents were over the other day, and my mom stops by and stares at the screen.

"Is this a painting?"
"No, it's a photograph. Does it look like a painting?"
"Well, it kind of looks like both."
"It was actually done on a computer."
"Oh. Neat."

Now, if you knew my mom, this is high praise indeed. I don't think she's ever commented on any of my stuff.

[aquamire]

Whoah, very nice Ballistic.

The only thing that seems kind of unnatural to me is the grass in the foreground.. it sticks straight up.. perhaps if some of the blades bent over one another or something to make it look more random?

You should submit this to Computer Graphics World, they might put it in the gallery section of the magazine. Might bring some attention to you.

[Dr. Bang]

hehehe, awesome work! I saw this baby on a 3d magazine last year.

btw ne1 notice the 69 ?

[balistic]

Just wanted to add a couple behind-the-scenes things:


texture map


how I painted the mountains

Thanks for all the interest guys.

[Probus]

this definetely is a cool shot, damn i wish i could apply textures like that. i�ve seen progresses this model before while browsing your page, and looked promising.

i�m wondering about the DOF.. both walls on the sides look bent at the top, while they should actually go straight in a diagonal line due to the height. isn�t that called parallax?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Probus ]