[Bubbaloo]

Great job, Tom.

[eric nixon]

What the problem with this map, apart from the ridiculous resolution?



Hint > Rusteberg matched the lighting from the vray render for a good reason.

[Tok_Tok]

The map has highlights in it.. But I don't believe that Rusteberg's render is better, just because of the lighting, it's the material itself too, I think

Maybe he can shed some light on this, so to speak

[polynurb]

don't have that mint plant in a bucket, but same textures.(output tonemapped)

[Tok_Tok]

That also looks very nice Polynurb, but a bit overlit if you ask me. I finished my render, photoshopped it, and this is the final image I think:



A thank you to all of you who helped!

[Tora_2097]

Are you applying the bump only to the diffuse layer? I'm asking because the sheen on some leafs look to be perfectly smooth as if there's no bump on the specular layer. The leafs are still looking a bit solid but that might be due to photoshop.

[Tok_Tok]

No the bumpmap is used on the Global Bump layer. I think the roughness can be a somewhat higher.. In this render though I'm not really bothered by it

[vizport]

All good so far. However it's engine specific that no matter what one pulls off the box it's "plastic look". But Vray engine if not corrected in PS will look even more plastic. Maybe thickness and cellular diffuse map in a good layer mix help out more. I experimented with some mix in my cactus howto. Unfortunately not english, but you can see some settings. Organics are still king class in cg.

http://vizport.de/3d-kaktus-modell-text ... ll-render/

[rusteberg]

In this render though I'm not really bothered by it

that's bothersome because there's so much room for improvement here. it looks like you gave up too easily and just post processed the living crap out of that poor plant..... and to no good effect

what is it exactly that you are having trouble with in making this particular plant look the way you want it to look? seems like the issues are all over the board here....

[Tok_Tok]

You are absolutely right.. I'm not satisfied and if I keep on improving I would learn a lot from it. At the moment I'm kind of short on time, BUT I'll give it another try in a few days and I'll start from scratch. As I said before, organic materials aren't my strongsuit, but then again there's a lot to learn

[rusteberg]

ok, cool - start here for your sub surface and watch how these two parameters affect each other.... get this looking the way you want it to and then build from there (may take a while to load - it's a 35mb swf)

[eric nixon]

Rusteberg you could re-record with THIN-SSS turned on? .....

[numerobis]

interesting presentation - i never tried it without single sided. I have tested it here too and can see the camera changing at some Attenuation and ND settings - why
Is it possible to use sss that way?

[rusteberg]

Rusteberg you could re-record with THIN-SSS turned on? .....

i could.... but then it's not as obvious how those two parameters affect each other

2014-05-04_0936.gif

2014-05-04_09362.gif

[rusteberg]

essentially you're trying to mimic the sub surface effect on a single sided mesh without the luxury of being able to model the intricate thickness of something that appears to be paper thin - soooooo, that's why i suggested starting with solid and then adapting to single sided because once you flip on the single sided switch, the balancing act becomes more delicate in my humble opinion

(the plane has Single Sided SSS and the Box is a solid sub surface)

ThinVsSolid-1.jpg

ThinVsSolid-2.jpg

2014-05-04_0936-3.gif