|
|
Poor Quality Images in Render
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Poor Quality Images in Render // Tech Forum
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 11:02am
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
I am trying to do put a .jpg file on a plane that is visible through a window; however, the image looks very poor (Bottom image). It is a great image done through Terragen (Top image) but when it renders it is not good. Any thoughts?:confused: |
Post by robert // Oct 5, 2008, 11:19am
|
robert
Total Posts: 609
|
If you have an empty scene with just that background it renders fine, but then it looks messed up through the window? Not exactly sure what your asking for. |
Post by splinters // Oct 5, 2008, 11:37am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
No need to put it on a plane...just set it as your background image.
After that, the glass material must be the culprit...;) |
Post by spacekdet // Oct 5, 2008, 11:47am
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
Default render settings are not at high quality.
Change 'Render Quality' setting to high, enable raytracing, and rendering visibility to Raycast and see if that doesn't improve things.
15609 |
Post by splinters // Oct 5, 2008, 12:00pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
I do wonder why they did that...after all, any PC capable of running tS7.6 should surely manage high quality settings on model side by default...:confused: |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 12:45pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
If you have an empty scene with just that background it renders fine, but then it looks messed up through the window? Not exactly sure what your asking for.
Robert,
Nope. Even if I use just the plane with the image it is pretty poor. |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 12:46pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
If you have an empty scene with just that background it renders fine, but then it looks messed up through the window? Not exactly sure what your asking for.
No need to put it on a plane...just set it as your background image.
After that, the glass material must be the culprit...;)
I've tried that (and I learned a long time ago that I don't need glass in the windows (except on specific occasions) but it still does not come out as clear as I think it should. :confused: |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 12:47pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Default render settings are not at high quality.
Change 'Render Quality' setting to high, enable raytracing, and rendering visibility to Raycast and see if that doesn't improve things.
15609
spacekdet....I have those set as well. I am starting to think that maybe if I just leave a black background and then use GIMP to put it in as a layer in post production it will be what I am looking for. |
Post by jayr // Oct 5, 2008, 1:26pm
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
try using the matt shader on the plane with the lum turned up, I'm guessing you've probably tried this by now though |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 1:45pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Nope, but that is next... thanks.
Okay, not it either...hmmm |
Post by Breech Block // Oct 5, 2008, 2:00pm
|
Breech Block
Total Posts: 844
|
Try turning off either your model's (of the widows) ability to cast shadows or your background plane's ability to receive them. |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 2:32pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Thanks for the suggestion. It was definitely better (I also reduced some of the lighting) but not the clarity I am looking for.
I did learn something though. I have never seen this before but the window object "cast shadows" and "receive shadows" were both grayed out. I discovered that this was due to my trying the VirtualLight renderer so I put it back to LightWorks |
Post by transient // Oct 5, 2008, 2:59pm
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
I can't see any reason why this should happen, so it's hard to know what's going wrong. Maybe you could upload the scene for a test? |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 3:28pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
I can't see any reason why this should happen, so it's hard to know what's going wrong. Maybe you could upload the scene for a test?
Can do, please keep in mind that it is a very crude scene right now ;) but here it is. |
Post by robert // Oct 5, 2008, 3:53pm
|
robert
Total Posts: 609
|
Here's what you do right-click the render icon and set the background to image, then right click the Caligari logo that is circled in the image below. That will bring up the box that is off to the left, except yours should be down near the bottom, click the button where I have the number five and select your background. When you do this and you render it will always be the same background no matter which way you face. In the last two images I rotated my view, not the object. |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 4:30pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Here's what you do right-click the render icon and set the background to image, then right click the Caligari logo that is circled in the image below. That will bring up the box that is off to the left, except yours should be down near the bottom, click the button where I have the number five and select your background. When you do this and you render it will always be the same background no matter which way you face. In the last two images I rotated my view, not the object.
First off, thank you everybody for your suggestions and help with this. It stinks being a noob with this stuff but everybody has to start somewhere. Anyways, thank you!
Here is how it turned out with those settings.
Looks good. I still think it should be a bit clearer. Maybe I am just asking too much :)
The water close to the window looks natural; however, if I am looking through that window outside it is not going to be that fuzzy to me, I would not think. |
Post by spacekdet // Oct 5, 2008, 4:52pm
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
I would think it's time to put on an a life jacket! |
Post by robert // Oct 5, 2008, 4:53pm
|
robert
Total Posts: 609
|
...The water close to the window looks natural; however, if I am looking through that window outside it is not going to be that fuzzy to me, I would not think.
Well it's showing exactly what the image is, so if you want something else you'll have to tweak the one you have or make a new one... Or you could even model out the stuff as it's fairly simple already and then you can have Depth of Field which will actually progressively blur the background which always looks good.
Honestly for the mountains you can have an alpha mapped plane, or basic mesh with some simple shaders and for the ocean use some bump or normal maps and a partially reflectant shader and have the sky be a panorama image or some alpha clouds and a gradient shader for the blue color, not much extra work with easily modifiable results. |
Post by transient // Oct 5, 2008, 4:53pm
|
transient
Total Posts: 977
|
When I loaded the scene it was looking for a map called "WinterDay_320x240". That's a very small image. If you're going to render at a size bigger than that, then you're likely to get artifacts. It's exactly the same with textures.
I think the blurriness your getting is that truespace is set to filter the image, which can make it look better, but it can only do so much. If you're going to use a background image in a render, then it's resolution should ideally be as high as the final render is going to be. |
Post by spacekdet // Oct 5, 2008, 7:48pm
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
Transient, I think you nailed it there.
320X240 is way too small to use as a background image.
tahnoak, you'd be better off re-rendering the BG image larger from Terragen and trying it again. |
Post by W!ZARD // Oct 5, 2008, 8:41pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
When I loaded the scene it was looking for a map called "WinterDay_320x240". That's a very small image. If you're going to render at a size bigger than that, then you're likely to get artifacts. It's exactly the same with textures.
I think the blurriness your getting is that truespace is set to filter the image, which can make it look better, but it can only do so much. If you're going to use a background image in a render, then it's resolution should ideally be as high as the final render is going to be.
Transient has hit the nail on the head I think. Background images, whether in the background shader or painted on a plane (there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods) must be in as hi a resolution as possible - with the minimum being the same size as the intended final render.
If you look through my Renderosity gallery (link in sig below) you'll find many pics with good quality background images - the secret is to use big images for backgrounds. |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 10:42pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
You know through all this it did not even strike me until I saw your post spacekdet and then I realized...whoa, I am waaaay too close to the water. So I am raising the camera a bit :-) |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 5, 2008, 10:45pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Transient has hit the nail on the head I think. Background images, whether in the background shader or painted on a plane (there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods) must be in as hi a resolution as possible - with the minimum being the same size as the intended final render.
If you look through my Renderosity gallery (link in sig below) you'll find many pics with good quality background images - the secret is to use big images for backgrounds.
Transient, I think you nailed it there.
320X240 is way too small to use as a background image.
tahnoak, you'd be better off re-rendering the BG image larger from Terragen and trying it again.
When I loaded the scene it was looking for a map called "WinterDay_320x240". That's a very small image. If you're going to render at a size bigger than that, then you're likely to get artifacts. It's exactly the same with textures.
I think the blurriness your getting is that truespace is set to filter the image, which can make it look better, but it can only do so much. If you're going to use a background image in a render, then it's resolution should ideally be as high as the final render is going to be.
Yeah, that 320 x 240 was my initial attempt after the 640 x 480 image didn't look any different so I thought I would use a smaller image. But let me try again with your suggestions and see how it comes out. Thanks again. |
Post by splinters // Oct 5, 2008, 10:52pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Wow, 320x240 is small. I try to getthe background image the same size as my intended output image and rarely less than 1600x1200/
Hope a better resolution helps. Are you still mapping the image to a plane? |
Post by TomG // Oct 6, 2008, 3:30am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Be sure also to adjust the texture resolutions used. In the Model side, right click on "Draw Objects As Solid" (or any of the real-time rendering mode icons there in the Model side).
There are three controls for textures that can result in downsampling of images, depending on what render engine you are using.
I usually set these all to 512 or higher. In particular, the workspace resolution affects V-Ray renders. The first setting affects real-time view in the Model side, the second affects resolution rendered in Lightworks.
If these are set too small (and by default they are pretty small) it might result in degradation of textures and images used. May not be happening in this case, but figure it would be worth a mention!
On image size, be sure the original image is larger than it will ever show up in the final render. Eg if you have a cube and it will occupy 256 pixels in your final 1024x768 render, then if the original texture is 256 pixles you are fine. If you are zooming in on the cube and it now occupies 800 pixels in your 1024x768 render, then your 256 original texture has to be expanded by trueSpace when it renders. Just like enlarging it inside Photoshop or other 2D application, you'll find it loses detail and becomes fuzzy.
So you should be sure that your textures are an appropriate size depending on what pixel size they will occupy in your final render.
HTH!
Tom |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 6, 2008, 12:28pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Wow, 320x240 is small. I try to getthe background image the same size as my intended output image and rarely less than 1600x1200/
Hope a better resolution helps. Are you still mapping the image to a plane?
Splinters...I am so used to just using the defaults that I failed to realize that my base image was 640 x 480 but the image I was rendering was larger than that. Once I made my render the same size as my base image it came out much better. |
Post by tahnoak // Oct 6, 2008, 12:30pm
|
tahnoak
Total Posts: 487
|
Be sure also to adjust the texture resolutions used. In the Model side, right click on "Draw Objects As Solid" (or any of the real-time rendering mode icons there in the Model side).
There are three controls for textures that can result in downsampling of images, depending on what render engine you are using.
I usually set these all to 512 or higher. In particular, the workspace resolution affects V-Ray renders. The first setting affects real-time view in the Model side, the second affects resolution rendered in Lightworks.
If these are set too small (and by default they are pretty small) it might result in degradation of textures and images used. May not be happening in this case, but figure it would be worth a mention!
On image size, be sure the original image is larger than it will ever show up in the final render. Eg if you have a cube and it will occupy 256 pixels in your final 1024x768 render, then if the original texture is 256 pixles you are fine. If you are zooming in on the cube and it now occupies 800 pixels in your 1024x768 render, then your 256 original texture has to be expanded by trueSpace when it renders. Just like enlarging it inside Photoshop or other 2D application, you'll find it loses detail and becomes fuzzy.
So you should be sure that your textures are an appropriate size depending on what pixel size they will occupy in your final render.
HTH!
Tom
Tom,
Thanks to you as well. These are the little nuggets that only come from experience and not being afraid to ask for help. I greatly appreciate it. |
|
