Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Hereby the result of way too much time on my hand

Important note: If you use Mac OS, this Jpeg looks horrible?!? Take a look at the next one, it's a PNG that looks fine on OSX.


24K gold plated Aston Martin V8 Vantage

Couldn't upload BMP's on imageshack, but here's a PNG that looks like it's supposed to on Mac OS. I'm going to leave both here so people on Mac OS can see how crappy Apple shows Jpeg's. Note that this is exactly the same rendering, no additional photoshopping at all, the only difference is the file format.


24K gold plated Aston Martin V8 Vantage

Ah, that car was way out of my price-range even before your gold plating
The render looks amazing, and the car looks perfect!
What modeling software did you use to create the car?

Looks good!! But only one image

Do have to say that i'm more impressed with your modeling skills then with your rendering skills.

Tok_Tok wrote:Looks good!! But only one image

Do have to say that i'm more impressed with your modeling skills then with your rendering skills.

Hi Tok_Tok

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but I've always been told to consider the source, so I took a look at your website.

If this is not a good rendering, could you please pick one of your own renderings as a good example, and show me?

Please note, that this is a gold plated (not gold paint) car, not something you would see in real life. Also, this gold on black won't look good on a low contrast ratio LCD screen.

Kim

Great looking project Neeper

would love to see it out of a studio environment....something like this



looking forward to seeing more

Just to be clear, I am not challenging you, I am only saying that your rendering is good but not as good as your modeling because that is outstanding! So I am not saying that your render is not good or bad, it's just that your modeling is better, I think you misunderstood me

Btw in my own renderings I have no car renderings so it wouldn't be a good comparison.

i have to agree with tok-tok,
really nice model but lighting can be improved!

there is a nice tool which could help you making studio-hdrs...

http://www.hdrlightstudio.com/

best regards
munch

Hello everyone

I've been a bit confused about the feedback, but it just started to make sense.
I usually use windows as I model in Rhino, but just logged on to OSX, and saw this thread.

Damn! it looks horrible on OSX, it totally ruins the black/gray levels?? Also, the gold looks wrong and the lighting in general doesn't looks good.
Does anyone know why Mac shows Jpeg's so differently from Windows?

So my question is, are you guys using Mac OS?
I will try to see if I can post the BMP later today, don't know if it will work as it is 3 Mb.

Also I'm rendering a pearl white version on a white background now.

munch: the link doesn't work here, I'll try to take a look at it again later.

Best regards
Kim

I don't see any difference between mac and windows. Although i cannot compare it directly monitor -> monitor.
But do you use Firefox on both machines? Because that should display the image the same way. Its that or one of the monitors are
horrible calibrated..

Tok_Tok wrote:I don't see any difference between mac and windows. Although i cannot compare it directly monitor -> monitor.
But do you use Firefox on both machines? Because that should display the image the same way. Its that or one of the monitors are
horrible calibrated..

Hi Tok_Tok.

It doesn't matter if you use Firefox, Safari, Explorer or Chrome, the problem is OSX.

I don't know what the problem is, but I now uploaded a PNG which looks fine on OSX, as you can see there's a big difference, the Jpeg looks really crappy on OSX. I checked this on several computers, and it's very consistent, the problem is OSX.

Does anybody know what causes this?

The two images look almost identical...the tone mapping in the second is slightly better. (im on windows and firefox).

I dont know what we are meant to see that will be different.

Your studio render is kinda bland....do something different with it...its a great model and you can make more of it. (im not being mean....just honest)

wingwalker wrote:The two images look almost identical...the tone mapping in the second is slightly better. (im on windows and firefox).

I dont know what we are meant to see that will be different.

Your studio render is kinda bland....do something different with it...its a great model and you can make more of it. (im not being mean....just honest)

Yes, the difference it quite small on windows as said, the problem is on Mac OSX, it can't show the Jpeg correctly

Best regards
Kim

It does look bad indeed! Good one to remember if you post anything on the web. Ofcourse PNG has always a better quality then JPEG

the image is ok. cars are 2 a penny and maxwell more or less automates the process of rendering so you need to add a fair bit more to create your own identity. Id suggest you get a deeper skillset in the art of 3d generally before getting emotional about your work

deflix wrote:the image is ok. cars are 2 a penny and maxwell more or less automates the process of rendering so you need to add a fair bit more to create your own identity. Id suggest you get a deeper skillset in the art of 3d generally before getting emotional about your work

Hi Delfix

It's always easy to criticize others work, why don't you show me how you would do it? Please do a car rendering, then we have something to talk about, and I’m not saying this in a pissing contest kind of way, but isn’t it just much better to just show me what you mean?
I get that some people aren't crazy about this rendering, and that's cool with me, but I happen to like it. I did not try to make it look like any other rendering you would see in a magazine, I made it just the way I liked it.

You have done some really great renders, but also some quite bad renders. Your ship interior is superb, but your Lego helicopter doesn't look real, the light is really bad, modeling is bad etc..
This is the first car I worked on, I'm still learning, and I’m better at product design and rendering http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... =7&t=33643

We are all in a constant process of learning.

I love Maxwell's slogan: As easy as taking a photo. Course yes, it is easy to take a photo, a child can do that, but it's not easy to shoot a great photo. I started out studying photography 5 years ago, and believe I'm an okay good photographer today, but I do know my own limitations, there are photographers several levels above me. If you look at the first photo in my Neeper’s gallery thread, it’s shot by GAB, the best photo studio in Denmark, they charge around 5.000 euro for one photo. I can’t do this, partly course I don’t have the 400.000 Euro camera and lights, but also course the photographer has way more experience than I do.

Reason I mention this, is that in my opinion your renderings in general are shot at some odd very wide angles. Maybe you like them this way, but you would probably never see a professional photographer do this.
Constructive critique is always welcome, but writing “get a deeper skillset in the art of 3d generally” I find a bit childish, in the “my dad killed the Dead Sea, I’m flawless” kind of way.

None of us are perfect, if you want the perfect Maxwell rendering then start with a superb photographer, and teach him 3D and Maxwell. Art of 3d generally? I don’t try to make art, just something that looks as close to a real photo as possible.

Best regards
Kim Neeper Rasmussen