A while ago I created this image in Blender. It shows a megalodon, which is a gigantic prehistoric shark, that attacks a submarine. The image is quite dark because it is very dark down there in the oceans. If you want to enjoy the image to it’s full extent without doing something silly like changing it’s (or your monitor’s) brightness setting, turn off the lights and make sure it is as dark as possible in your room…
EDIT: Okay, the link is fixed now 
Not bad at all. I really like the rock texture you have. Looks great. It is a little too dark IMO. For posting to have crits and general reviews, we should be able to see it.
BgDM
Can’t see it…
Can’t see the link. Also, what’s with more people using PNG for renders? It’s nice for small, indexed pictures but not like jpg for large full-color pictures. What’s up?
PNG is better quality, and i think we all know that geocities URLS need to be copy/pasted by now, dont we?
Nice shark ! I like the darkness, but it is a bit extreme, hard to see any details. A close-up with the sub more prominent would be nice so we can see how big the shark is…
You don’t need to copy and paste geocities-hosted pictures, if you must use geocities, follow one or more of the instructions in this thread :
https://blenderartists.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12431&start=0
Why it wasn’t made sticky I don’t know. But there’s a very simple web adress you can paste before the geocities link to directly link the picture into the elysiun post, it’s somewhere near the bottom of the first page of that thread (other ways given too, so read the whole thing).
Yeah. PNG is better quality but the file size is exponetially bigger, too. JPG with a high quality compression will still look better with large amounts of color than PNG and it will have about 1/10 of the file size. Also, I did paste the link and it still didn’t work. But thanks for being an asshole about it. I think the real reason is that Geocities may be disallowing this file because of the bandwidth allotted him being exceeded. That’s why I made the PNG\JPG filesize comment. But again, thanks for being an asshole.
Yeah. PNG is better quality but the file size is exponetially bigger, too. JPG with a high quality compression will still look better with large amounts of color than PNG and it will have about 1/10 of the file size. Also, I did paste the link and it still didn’t work. But thanks for being an asshole about it. I think the real reason is that Geocities may be disallowing this file because of the bandwidth allotted him being exceeded. That’s why I made the PNG\JPG filesize comment. But again, thanks for being an asshole.[/quote]
when u use high quality JPEGS and want them to look just as good as PNGs (the highest quality) the filesize is about the same. last time i tested it was on a 100kb pic and the PNG was 100kb the JPEG was 99kb… aaaaaaaanyway…
First of all, the link is fixed now.
As for the PNG vs JPG debate, I think that PNG is a very useful format because it creates a really high compression ratio without sacrificing the quality of the source image and it is a widely supported web format which (unlike JPEG) is able to store an alpha channel for transparency information that is handled well by some browsers and bad by others (which blend transparent pixels with a static color, e.g. white). When you create a JPEG file with quality set to 1.0 and smoothing set to 0, you still get a modified picture, whereas the PNG version preserves all the original pixel values.
Wow. That’s great modeling. I like the Alvin-ish robot in the foreground. Also that’s a nice use of fog. I don’t mean to be anal, but you have no alpha data in that picture. Can you please (just for the sake of me on slow dialup) use jpg compression (I’m talking to everyone) though. I compressed this picture at a VERY low compression rate with no noticable loss in quality. Your png is 396 Kb. My jpeg (http://reblended.com/mirrored/meg_attack.jpg) is 39 Kb. That is a 10:1 compression ratio. All that means is instead of waiting 3 minutes to view this picture, I can see it in 18 seconds. This also means I am more likely to comment on your picture. So please people, at least include alternate versions of an image that are compressed.
Back on subject, I think this is a nice image that has some potential (think particles for “gunk” instead of all fog).
Thanks for your criticism.
I don’t really have a problem with JPEGs, I just wanted to preserve as much detail of the shapes in the image as possible because it is very dark. If you look at your JPEG version, you will notice (just as I noticed when I wanted to save the image as JPEG first) that the megalodon itself and it’s skin details look blurry.
As for the alpha channel support thing, I just mentioned that because it’s a thing you can do with PNG images (smoothely blend small graphics into a website) which would be cool if all web browsers supported it properly.
I hear that.
shibbydude: PNG’s have both better compression and quality than jpg in every area. The bad compression you’re talking about is due to bad implementation of png in many programs.
Not true. PNG uses mainly lossless compression, so half of your statement is true. But the half about the better compression is bull. PNG compresses a picture as much as it can without losing any color “correctness” but then the compression stops. Jpeg changes the colors in a picture slightly so that the compression may be better overall, therefore, in theory, Jpeg can be a lot more compact (at the expense of some tiny details and color accuracy). Just the facts, sir :).
Nice texture and rendering, but the fins are too big and the head and base of the tail is too small.
