This is my entry for the next week's Apophysis WTC - Gnarloscopin'. It is based on the great Gnarloscope script by [link]
It looked a lot like a brain to me. I have applied a little FX and PX to the original to give it a more elongated brain-like shape.
Done in Apophysis 2.083D Hack
Full view for detail and download is 1280x1024
Update 08-12-09: This won 1st place in the WTC - Gnarloscopin'!!! It took a while to get the results because there was a problem with getting enough entries for the next week's WTC. This was due to an elusive plug-in needed to perform the script which was the basis of the next WTC theme. But eventually it came to light and the results for the previous WTC could be posted. Thanks to all of you Apo members who voted for this!! I really appreciate the support.
Very nice Peggi , you'll probably win again I think you should re-render it at a higher quality to get rid of some of that graininess in the middle part 10k turns that into "plastic/reflective" looking rather than grain, just a suggestion
Thanks, TJ. I always wondered at my render level. I only recently discovered post-rendering. I don't have a dual core processor, so large renders at HQ are very time consuming. When I first started rendering in Apo, I used Quality 2K, Filter Radius 0.2 and Oversample 2 and never did any post-rendering. Now I usually do Qual = 4K, FilRad 0.2 (then I increase it during post-render, usualy somewhere between 0.5 and 1 depending on the image and I find that really makes a difference) and OverSample 3 (don't know Oversample does other than chew up a lot of memory, is it worth it to increase it?). So, if I increase the Qual from 4K to 10K you think it would help that middle section? I haven't submitted this yet, so I could re-render and then re-upload the new one for submission. I will definitely give it a try.
I really appreciate the information. Once again you have taught me something I will use a lot. You're always right on time, TJ.
I can't show you any examples since I never upload to scraps, there's a big difference between 4k and 10k, and so on, think of it as like doubling the scanning process during rendering, same with oversample, it's most noticeable with julian tubes/wires/blurs/noise
for post processing I use this trick after saving your pic, go to where you have your render saved and rename it, change your settings in post process box again, save it again and do that as many times as you want, you can also use vibrancy higher than 1 here, 1.025 for example, open your paint program, start with the background layer you want, add the first render you saved, open the second render and paste as the 2nd layer and so on, I usually use opacity 80%/Soft Light on the second (render) layer, add curve layers, brightness, sharpness, unsharp mask or whatever brings out the details of the flame the most 1024x768 @ 10k 2OS only takes an hour on my 1.8Ghz single core 512mb system
I re-rendered at 10K and it did indeed make a difference. Most of the graininess is gone, I think. I also did a little FX and PX work to give it a better "brain" shape. I hope you like this version better. This 1600x1200, 10K, OS 2, FR 0.2 render took 3 hours on a 3Ghz PC with 2Gb RAM. I find some flames take longer. I guess it's the nature of the variations. Not necessarily the number of transforms, but the number and nature of the variations.
yep, that looks 6x better Notice how the grain turned into almost "reflective balloon" texture, the higher the quality the more it gets like that.
In rendering just like in apo if a variation used takes a long time to update (Truchet for example) it will also have a long rendering time, all this stuff is mathematics being calculated over and over. The more calculations (which is different for every variation used) the longer the render times, not including what is also added by the other render settings, OS, etc.
I've used up to 40k on some since I let them render overnight, although there wasn't a lot of difference between 10k and 40k, so I mainly use 10k now as it's good for dealing with graininess at the render size I use = go bigger in size then raise the quality to reduce grain
Thank you, Roz. Do you think it looks like a brain? I tried to get it more an oblong brain shape, but just when I got it to almost the right shape, the juliascope would pull it apart. This was about as close as I could get without spending a whole lot of time, which I don't have this weekend, tweaking til I found a variation or TX shape that worked.
I use the PX and FX to elongate and change the shape. 1.25 on the X transform can do a pretty good job...Use it on the FX if you have added that.
I have sent you a little present. You will need to go to the link and put in my email and password. It may be busy as I have sent it to several people and only one can download it at a time.
It is a virtual gallery of some of my images. Hope you enjoy it. I have been at it all day.
The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork
Please sign up or login to post a critique.