Various rendering choices? -- Challenge!
-
Initial experiment with KT stereo-image production. View by crossing your eyes, until the two images superimpose in the center. (It will look like 3 images in-a-row.) Concentrate on the center image, until it comes into focus.I used SketchUp to produce two "scenes," which merge into KT as two cameras. (Getting the spacing is tricky. You don't want to overdo the angular separation. It is supposed to mimic the angular separation of your eyes, so camera distance is also a factor.)
-Taff
-
@taffgoch said:
[attachment=0:31w8a5i7]<!-- ia0 -->Stereo_Weave_01.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:31w8a5i7]
. View by crossing your eyes, until the two images superimpose in the center. (It will look like 3 images in-a-row.) Concentrate on the center image, until it comes into focus.-Taff
I find a few beer works well too!
-
that stereo view is amazing!! looks like avatar!!
seriously impressive but my eyes hurt!
-
@olishea said:
that stereo view is amazing!! looks like avatar!!
seriously impressive but my eyes hurt!
Lucky you! I think I have some wiring problems - I never been able to see these kind of "3D" images. No matter how much I try to focus... de-focus or what ever. But different 3D glasses do usually work fine.
-
you have to move your head back and forward to get the "focal length" right lol it really does look 3D!!
-
This is a great learning thread...thanks Taff! My small contribution, if you can call it that...all that I supplied was the computing power. Magnifying lens and scene by Fletch at the Twilight Render Forum.
-
@d12dozr said:
This is a great learning thread...thanks Taff!
Marcus,
I've learned a lot, too. Your render depicts a handy concept for presentation of detail in a render.
Regarding my 3D view experiment, I've completed a larger version of my initial, small, proof-of-concept render. If you have a hi-res display, the initial model will look tiny. This one should look much better on hi-res displays.
(If you have trouble focusing, cross-eyed, on the center image, move your head forward or back, as suggested by Oliver Shea.)
*%(#BF0000)[Render: "16. Path Tracing - High + AA 0.3"
Camera 1:
Ray Tracing : ( 4,892 seconds) 1h/21m/32s
Antialiasing : (12,792 seconds) 3h/33m/12s
Finished in : 4h/54m/48s
Camera 2:
Ray Tracing : ( 4,883 seconds) 1h/21m/23s
Antialiasing : (13,105 seconds) 3h/38m/25s
Finished in : 4h/59m/54s
Both cameras:
Lens: f/4.2, 135mm focal length, 3.4m focus distance]*
-Taff -
I think that render might be a bit large for some of us. The inter ocular distance for most folks is around 2 - 4", and that model on my screen is just under 8" on centers for a 22" LCD. That means your eyes at a normal monitor's viewing distance of 1-3' would have to diverge to get the 3D effect. I tried crossing my eyes, and that didn't work either. Guess mine just don't work that way
-
right... I don't really do cross-eyed picture-things
I do, however, own a very primitive pair of red/cyan-3d-glasses.So I tried making this picture into a picture that can work with those glasses... proves quite difficult, but I think it works...
-
yeah i think this one doesn't work as well Taff.....it seems blurry compared to the smaller one....the effect is still there, just not as crisp it seems.
-
@escapeartist said:
"The inter ocular distance for most folks is around 2 - 4", and that model on my screen is just under 8" on centers for a 22" LCD. That means your eyes at a normal monitor's viewing distance of 1-3' would have to diverge to get the 3D effect."
Quiet right, but there are two different versions of this kind of stereo imagery: "parallel" and "cross" viewing.
For parallel-viewing, the images MUST be small enough to be spaced at no more than the interocular distance. Parallel is viewed by "staring" off into the distance, to "set" your lines-of-sight to parallel, then shifting your gaze to the images, without changing the sight-line angle. (Kinda tricky. Many people never get the hang of it. It was easier for me, when I was younger. My eyes are now "old" enough that they can't focus as readily as they used to.)
For cross-viewing, you're looking at the left image with your right eye, and the right image with your left eye. The images, therefore, have no interocular restraint. They can be bigger (sometimes much bigger,) providing the advantage for the viewer "backing away" from the image, to change perceived size (if they can't cross their eyes that much.)
Note that with parallel-view stereo, the left eye is viewing the left image and the right eye is viewing the right image, just the opposite of cross-eyed stereo. For cross-eyed stereo, you MUST swap the images (which I did for my examples.)
Please note that I provided the larger version for high-resolution displays only. On my LCD monitor, the pixels are pretty small, reducing the size of images and text. (The large-stereo image-centers are about 5" apart.) I can view my larger stereo-pair, with my eyes about 2-3 feet from the monitor. If you use Firefox, you can change the size of images/text on internet pages, so you can shrink the stereo image, should need be.
@unknownuser said:
"I do, however, own a very primitive pair of red/cyan-3d-glasses.
So I tried making this picture into a picture that can work with those glasses... proves quite difficult, but I think it works..."I've played with red/cyan (anaglyph) stereo, as well, but never got good, sharp results. I haven't used it since (decades.)
I even tried "wiggle" stereo on this model, but was disappointed with the results. For more info, the Wikipedia article, on "Stereoscopy," is fairly comprehensive.
Eventually, 3D TV technology will migrate to computer displays, and the internet will be filled with 3D images that require dedicated "goggles" to view, just like "Avatar" theater goggles.
-Taff
-
Here's the "wiggle" stereograph, with which I was unimpressed:
(Give it time to load both "frames.")
-Taff
-
Hey Hey,
Dear Taff your stereoscopic views are so cool
I am fortunate enough to see without problem the three balls in your two stereoscopic views: the center one is splendidly in 3D deepness.
No difficulty for me to cross my eyes. I go in spirit of doing no effort and only search the focus. Back and rear a little as Olishea says and I find the third ball.
++simon
-
dito, the wiggle stereo is veeery cool. almost forgot about the technique, simple and effective. thanks for this interesting thread!
chers
alex -
Playing with weathered, chipped-paint material...
Kerkythea Forum - Weathered metalsTrial-and-error, to scale the texture bitmaps (color, specular & bump maps.) When I hit a good scale, the 3D-appearance of the texture really popped.
-Taff
-
BOOM.......render time 15 mins!!
GPU render over CPU render which would have taken hours!!
-
Liam,
Your post is a time-expenditure...
...for me!
I've been reading-up on Octane, CUDA & nVidia drivers, for the last hour.
(For my nVidia Quadro FX 1500M)
Nice renders, BTW. Any special material/lighting settings, or just click-and-render?
Are you using the free, limited-feature beta version, or the licensed/paid beta version?
nVidia? If so, which card, and which CUDA drivers did you have to install? (Surely, I don't need the entire developer's toolkit.)
-Taff
-
haha do it! I downloaded the demo about 6 hours ago, done this already. Im using my mates computer which is amazingly sick! but the render I just posted took about 3 seconds and im not exaggerating! Once the intitial render was done which is what I owuld expect from kerkythea I waited 17 mins for Octane to do '16,000' passes
and came up with these two bad boys lol!Ive just stuck my red bull air-racer and USMC tumbler on for an experiment and the results where breathtaking! real time ray-tracing, depth of field and volumetric lighting is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am buying the retail beta in the morning...........amazing!
"Nice renders, BTW. Any special material/lighting settings, or just click-and-render?
Are you using the free, limited-feature beta version, or the licensed/paid beta version?
nVidia? If so, which card, and which CUDA drivers did you have to install? (Surely, I don't need the entire developer's toolkit.)"
I just applied a grey diffuser (30 seconds) then applied a glossy specular finish (30 seconds) and I didnt have to click render as its real time its ALREADY DOING IT CONSTANTLY!
II used a GTX480 card and im not sure about the drivers but ill find out (its my mates computer) and post asap.
Very amazing tho, a kerk render of the same standard at a low resolution is many hours this is less than 10 seconds!!! Hard to believe but just look at the pics I posted they speak for them self!Apparently 'silverlight' render with 3dsmax11 offers the same setup but more expensive of course. Ill probably get the student license for max11 anyway as its usually about £100 for a year just to test. Ill be posting the results of my Octane experience here on my blog if you want to check out how its going: http://liam887.wordpress.com/
-
Hi,
Kerkythea is far from exhausted. Here just Sketchup and Kerkythea was used.
Charly
-
Regarding Octane, readers should take note that it is graphics-processor dependent (nVidia CUDA.)
I found out, on the nVidia forum, that my Quadro FX 1500M is NOT a CUDA-compatible graphics card. DARN!
The newest Dell Precision laptops contain CUDA-compatible nVidia processors, and that's where the price differences play in. The top-of-the-line contains 320 CUDA processors! No wonder it's so fast.
More info on the Quadro FX Mobile processors:
nVidia Quadro FX Mobile Products-Taff
Advertisement