Gary Bouton's non-Xara Art II

[Egg Bramhill]

Hi Egg, and no I don't mind at all. If you are referring to the noise throughout the picture, it was intentional. Maxwell Render allows you to set a film type and speed. It's virtual camera is photometrically accurate right down to simulating film emulsion.



Does this do anything for you that the other doesn't, in terms of photorealism? I just modeled and rendered it out of modo, and although it does chrome and glass very well, Maxwell Render gives me more latitude and the images are just...well, for me, more visually exciting. The glasses could have been rendered out of RenderMan, or 3D Studio, but I'm afraid there wouldn't be a lot of difference.

This is a Maxwell Render of a guitar I've used many different rendering engines to display:



My Best,

Gary

I much prefer that image Gary
Far more photo-realistic. As for photo speed & type that's over my head, not being a photographer, but I understand your aim, but on the other hand do viewers understand this medium/rendering either? I just see a speckled image. Not distracting from your work, just my observations. If you want to achieve photo-realism to the average viewer does film type, shutter speed etc mean anything to the uneducated (me) viewer?

On your guitar image I find the field of focus far to severe.

[Gare]

Egg and Larry—

I think this discussion has devolved into the taste I have in rendering the models I create, the content of the scene itself, and the rendering engine I use.

Let me play a "Which do you like better?" game here, and then move on, okay? :)



Okay, I'm thinking for the subject of an electric guitar (over 300 individual parts I had to model), that modo's rendering engine is more appropriate, right?

Next comparison: I think without looking very long, you'll note which image is a photo, and which one is my creation. Is there anything you like, such as an improved rendering, or anything you don't like in the rendered image? Is there anything you like or don't like in my photography skills? That was a joke (I hope).



How about this one? Is the glass glass-like?



Egg, I know you don't care for my choice of depth of field; in my defense, that was an effect in the Rickenbacker image I was only starting to grasp back in 2008. And I'm still pleased with the composition, enough to include it in this gallery.

As far as the noise you mention, and admitting you're not a photographer, there is grain in any physical photo (except Polaroids, I think). If you bought Kodachrome and used it at a very slow shutter speed (such as 1/30th of a second), you'd probably not see the grain. But in you used the 1970s Fuji color stock, you'd see color inaccuracies and a lot of grain because in the 1970s Fuji color wasn't very good, but inexpensive so if you wanted to slum it, you'd buy Fuji.

I'll work on the amount of film grain I choose in future renders. Although modo adds a little "jittering" to pixel values that neighbor one another, a 1 yo 1 viewing resolution, the effect contributes but is virtually unnoticeable:



On with the show!

My Best,

Gary

[wizard509]

As for me I think all 4 are very nice. I don't detect any grain in these. In the previous post of glasses I did see some grain on my computer, it was on the white glass thing in the far left.

[Gare]

Thanks, Larry. that was a validation of what I was thinking. I used three different rendering engines on my four models in post #40. And if all the images look good to you, then I must be doing something right with the programs. :)

My Best,

Gary

P.S. Okay, it's hideous, but it looks somewhat photo-realistic...

[Gare]

My idea of a good place to be as New England enters Autumn with a resounding thud.

-g

[Gare]

I can't bring myself to buy a card off the rack, especially since we had to buy a new inkjet this year.

[gray]

Gary, all I can say is your work is amazing.