So Vue smoothes out imported terrains

[Xpleet]

It's undeniable.

Vue6 smoothes incoming terrain even proced terrain.

The effect is quite visible. I must say this SUCKS ( because i just recognized it now :( )

Can we measure that? At what amount is the detail LOST and no longer improvable? 1024? 2048? To me it looks like I won't get above 512 with imported GC² terrain... This is very sad.

I'm using tiff to import from a procedural.


Is there any way to fix/improve...?

[alexcoppo]

I performed an experiment: creating an all black synthetic image (heightfield) with some isolated pure white spikes. If you like mathematics it is just a way to determine the behaviour of a system using its Impulse response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_response)...

The results were:

2x2 pixels spikes (and larger ones) had all the same height (though somewhat smoothed on the sides);
1x2 was somewhat smaller (I roughly estimated 80% of the maximum response);
1x1 was the smallest, about 50% of the maximum response.

This means that the heighest frequencies are damped by about a factor of 2, the next lower ones by about 20% and all the others are preserved (almost).

I tried to expand the heightfield using Wilbur (http://www.ridgenet.net/~jslayton/software.html) and resampling it to double size and the situation got better but still somewhat smoothened.

There is a way to restore details: using bump mapping. For this task I used WorldMachine 2 beta: I created and saved a minimally spatially smoothed version of the heightfield. Back in Vue, I created a bump mapping which was the difference between the original heighfield and the smoothed one (i.e. just the highest frequencies). Using a bump height factor of about .05 I was able to recreate the exact apperance of the GC preview.

You can do the same if you have an image editing application which handles 16 bit per channel images (like Photoshop).

I think that it would not be a great trouble for Cajomi to produce both the original TIFF and a smoothed one which just a 3x3 low pass kernel...

Bye!!!

P.S.: (for Cajomi) the reason to try to stay away from procedural terrains is that they are MUCH slower than normal ones... if one wanted slow renders he would use TG2 not Vue wouldn't he? ;)

[Xpleet]

I performed an experiment: creating an all black synthetic image (heightfield) with some isolated pure white spikes. If you like mathematics it is just a way to determine the behaviour of a system using its Impulse response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_response)...

The results were:

2x2 pixels spikes (and larger ones) had all the same height (though somewhat smoothed on the sides);
1x2 was somewhat smaller (I roughly estimated 80% of the maximum response);
1x1 was the smallest, about 50% of the maximum response.

This means that the heighest frequencies are damped by about a factor of 2, the next lower ones by about 20% and all the others are preserved (almost).

I tried to expand the heightfield using Wilbur (http://www.ridgenet.net/~jslayton/software.html) and resampling it to double size and the situation got better but still somewhat smoothened.

There is a way to restore details: using bump mapping. For this task I used WorldMachine 2 beta: I created and saved a minimally spatially smoothed version of the heightfield. Back in Vue, I created a bump mapping which was the difference between the original heighfield and the smoothed one (i.e. just the highest frequencies). Using a bump height factor of about .05 I was able to recreate the exact apperance of the GC preview.

You can do the same if you have an image editing application which handles 16 bit per channel images (like Photoshop).

I think that it would not be a great trouble for Cajomi to produce both the original TIFF and a smoothed one which just a 3x3 low pass kernel...

Bye!!!

P.S.: (for Cajomi) the reason to try to stay away from procedural terrains is that they are MUCH slower than normal ones... if one wanted slow renders he would use TG2 not Vue wouldn't he? ;)
Thx for the post Alex,

Oh well I'm not a mathematician at all!

What I would like to know tho is,
since what amount of detail can i expect vue to wash it all out

at about 1024, or 2048 or .. ?


Sometimes i wonder if it even makes sense to import GC² terrain into Vue at all!

[sjefen]

Is there any way to fix/improve...?

You could use Terragen 2 instead;).

I have not tested Vue and I don't think I will either, but I've seen many renders made with it and I understand exactly what you are talking about.

If you try to import a terrain you have made with Geo Control 2, into Terragen 2, you will see you don't lose any details. It's all there. Terragen 2 is just much more powerful when it comes to stuf like this and many, many more things if you ask me, but as I said..... I have not tested Vue. I've only seen renders from it.

I know this was maybe a little of topic, but it is a solution;)

[Xpleet]

You could use Terragen 2 instead;).

I have not tested Vue and I don't think I will either, but I've seen many renders made with it and I understand exactly what you are talking about.

If you try to import a terrain you have made with Geo Control 2, into Terragen 2, you will see you don't lose any details. It's all there. Terragen 2 is just much more powerful when it comes to stuf like this and many, many more things if you ask me, but as I said..... I have not tested Vue. I've only seen renders from it.

I know this was maybe a little of topic, but it is a solution;)

As far as TG² is concerned, i see no use for GC², TG ( as far as i know ) creates new detail in the terrain if you just zoom in more, so why would you import a GC² terrain into TG2? Probably it's not even going to work fine into the planetary system. Would be great if tho.

Cajomi says that TG² also smooths out imported terrain.


I use Vue6 because it's not a pure Terrain program but an Art program, i make scenes with vegetation and all that stuff you know and maybe later this year when i can get a q6600 i will look into the more elite looking renders.

So far people do amazing things with the TerraGen2 alpha but I guess when it's supposed to be complicated with objects and everything it will be a pain.
The inwards 3d terrain feature is outstanding.

But when it's more advanced, TG² will probably kick GC². We'll see i don't understand why Cajomi was so heavily disappointed by TG² tho...

I'm just a newbie and I'm happy that I can get along with Vue as I can. Waiting to get money for a new proc...

[sjefen]

As far as TG² is concerned, i see no use for GC², TG ( as far as i know ) creates new detail in the terrain if you just zoom in more, so why would you import a GC² terrain into TG2?


I'm not 100% sure here, but I do belive this is what is called added procedural details. I think this is just to help you not lose to much details if you are very close to the terrain.
I aslo think that if you don't like it, you can turn it off.

So you would want to import the terrain from GC2 to TG2 for the same reason as you would want to import it to Vue. It's easyer to make the terrain you want with GC2 then it is with TG2 or with Vue.

[Xpleet]

I'm not 100% sure here, but I do belive this is what is called added procedural details. I think this is just to help you not lose to much details if you are very close to the terrain.
I aslo think that if you don't like it, you can turn it off.

So you would want to import the terrain from GC2 to TG2 for the same reason as you would want to import it to Vue. It's easyer to make the terrain you want with GC2 then it is with TG2 or with Vue.

You don't have that niceh inwards effect...

Look, see Vue more like an Artist's program while Terragen is full hardcore Terrain and Planets, all for that.

In Vue I can turn and stretch and shape multiple imported terrains easily and apply different multi shaders on them.. so that's kind of what i'm doing in vue.

[sjefen]

He he. Alright. I see:)

[cajomi]

@Xpleet
Back to your basic question:
In general Vue does not loose any detail when you import a 16bit tif terrain with a proc function.
All what Alexcoppo here is explaining does only apply to standard terrains.

So, please post a example image, where you have lost details to solve that problem.
Take a look at the attached image to proof, that Vue proc terrains are as detailrich as the original GC2 terrain.

[alexcoppo]

Imagine a synthetic heightfield made up by 5 columns, 1x1 pixels to 5x5 pixels. The first three columns are in the foreground, the second ones in the background.

If you create a standard terrain driven by this synthetic heightfield, you get something like the first (left) attachment, while the procedural terrain gives you the second (right) one.

In the left you see how mauled is the 1x1 spike and also the 2x2 isn't unaffected; on the right, you have to look VERY carefully at the top (better expand the attachment): you will see that the 1x1 spike is ALMOST as high as all the other ones.

Dear Cajomi, as I have stated before, this discussion is NOT idle talk with Vue because:


procedural terrains render much slower than standard ones...
procedural terrains with images driving them often have ghastly artifacts on their borders (b.t.w.: what did you do to the TIFF export to prevent these artifacts?);
procedural terrains are troublesome w.r.t. their vertical extent (at least in Vue Esprit).


I really want to find an efficient way for Vue to render terrains in such a way to truly show what GC2 does!

Bye!!!

[Xpleet]

@Xpleet
Back to your basic question:
In general Vue does not loose any detail when you import a 16bit tif terrain with a proc function.
All what Alexcoppo here is explaining does only apply to standard terrains.

So, please post a example image, where you have lost details to solve that problem.
Take a look at the attached image to proof, that Vue proc terrains are as detailrich as the original GC2 terrain.

Cajomi thx for the post.

I remember you saying that with .tif+proc you can produce the best quality that vue can make, but

I thought that with lot's of my imported terrains from GC² i have strange spikes or simplified looking edges... I'll keep on watching it

I never use normal terrain tho.



Question by the side,

I always ask myself how I make photorealistic (post?)effects to the athmosphere in Vue, your Canyon Shot looks amazing.

[cajomi]

Most important:
Take some time. Try not to get a reasonable result within some hours. A good image can take some days.
Read the manuals, view the tutorials, fight not against your applications but work with them.
If you take a look at the Bryce renders of Rochr (rero gallery) you will see some of the most outstanding artworks, done in Bryce.
So, there is no "elitär" software for the best, that is only for those, who need a status symbol. All that rules, are the results, you are able to produce. The software is only a tool you use. And like every tool you need some time to learn how to use it.

My canyon image has not postwork effects, in general the Vue atmosphere is really excellent.

And if you want to get answers to your questions, give as much informations as possible, show example renders and try to avoid generalized statements.

[Xpleet]

Most important:
Take some time. Try not to get a reasonable result within some hours. A good image can take some days.
Read the manuals, view the tutorials, fight not against your applications but work with them.
If you take a look at the Bryce renders of Rochr (rero gallery) you will see some of the most outstanding artworks, done in Bryce.
So, there is no "elitär" software for the best, that is only for those, who need a status symbol. All that rules, are the results, you are able to produce. The software is only a tool you use. And like every tool you need some time to learn how to use it.

My canyon image has not postwork effects, in general the Vue atmosphere is really excellent.

And if you want to get answers to your questions, give as much informations as possible, show example renders and try to avoid generalized statements.

Cajomi,

I was just asking how you achieve the athmosphere in that Canyon shot. It has this photorealistic depth in it I'm sure you know what I mean. What kind of athmosphere do you use for these? HDRI? Also, of how many pieces of Terrains does this picture contain? I'm just curious, you're such a pro :)

[cajomi]

If you take a real close view at the image, you will see some "borders" in the distance terrain parts. I fill in some additional terrains (the same terrain mirrowed) for the background. But I did the job not so good, and so for luck you can see the borders.

I used the spectral atmosphere.

But, it is not that simple, that just switch to spectral atmosphere and you get a photorealistic image. As I said, most important is, to be patient. There is no "create artwork" button in any application.
For example, if you really like those atmosphere of a covered sky, like in your last image, work on it. It is really challenging. Be critical to yourself, compare your renders with photos which show such an atmosphere and get nearer to them step for step.

[Xpleet]

If you take a real close view at the image, you will see some "borders" in the distance terrain parts. I fill in some additional terrains (the same terrain mirrowed) for the background. But I did the job not so good, and so for luck you can see the borders.

I used the spectral atmosphere.

But, it is not that simple, that just switch to spectral atmosphere and you get a photorealistic image. As I said, most important is, to be patient. There is no "create artwork" button in any application.
For example, if you really like those atmosphere of a covered sky, like in your last image, work on it. It is really challenging. Be critical to yourself, compare your renders with photos which show such an atmosphere and get nearer to them step for step.

I see Cajomi, just creativity...just creativity..

Since I want to focus on Vue FOR now, I would just love to see more Shots you made in Vue6! On your page i see a ( yet? ) unavailable Carrara section and a main landscape section in which almost all of your terrain pics are from Terragen1 ( or 2? )

Are you using Flowmaps in your Terragen or Vue renders??

[cajomi]

The site is a bit old and at that time I did not own Vue. The terrain were not made with GeoControl, because at that time, GeoControl did not exist.
And at time I am busy with coding and the new website and simply have not the time for a good render.

I mostly used flowmaps.