I pretty much copied this out of a magazine, so not a lot of original design. I was just practicing. I used the blender internal renderer. I know there are great external rendering options that would probably be better for this, however I wanted to see how far I could take the internal renderer. Hope you like it!
It’s best to use an external renderer or cycles for such scenes. Using BI for this is a waste of time and effort.
you took the internal renderer to the max, great scene. one thing i would have done though is put some warmer more yellowish or orangey light in the scene maybe on the counter top. right now the scene is great but to me it is also a little lifeless.
didn’t strike me as anything amazing, however it does look very good. personally i think thats a pretty good job, but seems kinda boring theres nothing drawing your attention.
Nice job with BI, grats.
looks very good.black tabletop looks bit too bumpy.
sorry-double post-
Great work, modeling and rendering wise.
I’d exclude to put a carpet in that position, though, if somebody is going to cook there.
This is good! It still needs a bit more detail or light or an accent but you managed very well with the Internal render, I don’t think it is a wasted effort.
i agree with oanav this is not wasted effort at all, needs some minor tweaks but its fantastic.
I think you have done really well with Blender Internal. It doesn’t matter what you use but how you use it. Of course there are many external renderers out there that are better but you made the render the way you wanted too and you did a great job at it. The lighting may come across as a bit flat and plain in some areas but the sun light on the carpet looks really nice even though I wonder why there is a carpet in a kitchen in the first place. I think just adding an exterior image may help liven the scene up a bit. Well done.
Great great render. From the result, it seems to me that BI seems to be underrated. Would you care to share your Render and Compositing settings? The materials are spot-on too.
Andreu
it seems to me that BI seems to be underrate
BI is not underrated. Imagine how this image would look like with a different renderer.
For example, cycles.
Render time would be pretty much simmilar. Maybe cycles would have taken longer, but the setup in cycles would have been way way way quicker and would give a 10x better result.
BI is really bad for photorealistic rendering. No doubt about it.
It’s best to avoid it for such things.
But for toon stuff - BI is cool.
I 100% disagree. It is harder to get a photorealistic render with BI because you have to tell it what the physically correct settings are, but it is not bad for such things. Yeah you can slap a glossy material on an object and render it in cycles or any other non biased renderer with a great effect, but the same thing can be achieved in BI. In fact, BI in many ways gives you more control over the result.
A million examples come to mind, but how about the blender.org gallery?
http://www.blender.org/typo3temp/pics/d694d04aec.jpg
Which one is the blender internal?
First is INDIGO, second Luxrender. BI is realy ancient technology, deep 90’s, slow and inaccurate and it’s main reason pro users often avoid Blender
you have to tell it what the physically correct settings are
It’s impossible to tell it anything about physics.
but it is not bad for such things
Of course it is.
but the same thing can be achieved in BI
No it can’t.
You may get something simmilar by putting a lot of effort into it, but you will never get it as good, simply because BI does not support GI. You can try to fake GI by using lamps, but you won’t get real GI. Fake will never look as good.
In fact, BI in many ways gives you more control over the result.
It gives as much control to make realistic stuff as luxrender gives control to make toon stuff.
BI is a bad choice to make photo realistic images in every way, just like Luxrender is to make toon.
Every time there’s an archviz rendering made with internal, this seems like a witch hunt…
Nobody is gonna say that BI it’s the best renderer, that would be stupid. It’s obvious that is harder achieve realistic results, it’s more comfortable use a renderer with GI calculation, caustics, and blahblahblah. But if you are just making practices, it NEVER be a waste of time. The lack of resources helps you to improve your skills, and teachs you how solve problems. And this knowledge can’t be useless.
The advices are ok. But let the artist use the tool he wants.
For studies - yeah why not.
For art - Waste of time and effort.
For work - Waste of time, effort and quality.
Freemind, your ****EDIT Comment removed because “whatever”
As soon as you need to do anything for animation you have to think long and hard about using cycles or any of teh other ray tracers…
For work you can’t just tell the client “i’ve done the work, but I’ll show you in two months once the render’s have cooked…”
That’s when all that practice using BI and learning how to get great quality with fast fakes really pays off…
Besides, cycles is no “easier” than BI… you still have t know about composition, lighting etc… you still need to add tons of “fake” lights to get the best results.
It’s never about what you use, just about how you use it.
One of these days I’ll fall out of my chair because you give a critique beyond “use a different renderer” which is of no use to anybody… especially when the OP has made a considered choice.
Mr buns, great job for a first post!
I’d agree that the biggest improvement you could make would be in colour pallette
Some warmer yellow/orange light from outside where the light falls across the carpet from the door, some bluish fill in the black shadows at the back where the counters meet the walls…
Also it’s a little “show home” and un-lived in. maybe more “homeley” touches with the accessories on the counter tops, maybe a little “mess”… perhaps a recipe book, a kids drawing with fridgemagnets… some ingredients laid out for the prep of a meal… (chopping board, bowl of fruit, vase of flowers…)
The one point perspective is probably slightly to blame for the formal feel too. by shifting the camera left a bit and rotating it to the right to compensate I think you could get a little more dynamism! (with the right point of interest)
In most catalogs/brochures for kitchen design there’s a mix of natural light and artificial light (which is why recessed spotlighting for kitchens is so popular) there’s often a lot of bounce and lights that teh photographer has brought in themselves to “sweeten” the feel…
You can really draw the eye to a focal point and de-emphasise other irrelevant parts…
Personally I’d add “the human touch” somewhere in the scene and make that the focal point.
Ikea (the kings of bland modernist design) humanise their catalog by always putting one or more of:
- people,
- fruit/vegetables
- flowers in the shot…
Most archvis fails because it leaves this out.
You have a bowl of fruit, but it’s small, in the distance and underlit