Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Questions
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related
    Community
      Offtopic
      News
    Hardware
    Photography


Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(37 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies)
  Maxforums.org Members Gallery
(516 replies)
  SON OF POST YOURSELF
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

Is scale 1:1 important for vast environment shots for accurate and realistic lighting?
show user profile  Nanne
Does anyone have any experience in making full CG shots of large environments, like a helicopter shot over a vast landscape (several square kilometres, or miles). Is it important to make these kind of shots in full scale for lighting and rendering, to get a accurate and realistic rendering, I know that scale is very important for realistic ArchViz, but that is on a fairly small scale usually, we are talking about meters her, not miles. But is it just as important for these large scenes? The problem then is that a lot of softwares (like Max) are a bit tricky to work with on very large scales, and the texture size needed to cover all that ground in a nice and detailed manor most be very large. So how do they do these kind of scenes in the industry? Full scale or are there trickery involved?

Kristoffer Helander
www.kristofferhelander.se
  :: Works ::   |  :: Resumé ::   |  :: Contact ::   |  :: CG Blog ::   |  :: Links ::     
read 394 times
6/4/2015 11:40:45 PM (last edit: 6/4/2015 11:40:45 PM)
show user profile  S. Silard
Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, because of shadow casting, renderers physical camera settings , FOV, DOF, F-stop, size of lights(natural or artificial), and probably more.
All of these gives the sense of scale to the viewer. If one of these or more fails, the render will look just odd. If you are able to change the settings for all these factors, than the render should look good even if it's not 1:1 scale. But it's probably the best to always work with 1:1 scale, unless it's not possible.

On the other hand, scenes like that are usually Matte Paintings, and not fully 3D rendered.
read 388 times
6/4/2015 11:56:59 PM (last edit: 6/4/2015 11:56:59 PM)
show user profile  Mr_Stabby
In theoretical mathematical terms, not really since the physical function's don't change, you just have to scale every parameter accordingly. All though, it would be rather uncomfortable since most of these parameters don't scale linearly and also would be somewhat confusing since if you've dealt with them in the real world, your sense of perspective goes out of the window.

In practical rendering terms, yes it is important. Various renderers implement various optimizations that are linked to unit sizes, they are built to cut corners where ever they think it won't be visible. When messing with scales though, some of these might become apparent enough to also mess with the render quality.

read 378 times
6/5/2015 12:29:49 AM (last edit: 6/5/2015 12:29:49 AM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window


Support Maxforums.org