www.kraytracing.com

nterior quality HQ

Scene rendered in better quality AA G4 / 3K
Render time 15 minutes

Flashes on the kettle added in the postprocess.
The effect of the reflection adds a lot of realism, it should be an effect available from the level of K3.

Looking at the image in full resolution it looks pretty blurry. Is that the anti-aliasing or did you just go overboard with the chromatic aberation?

And, second question: do/will we have GGX metal shading in K3?

For this resolution: FSAA G3 Quadratic 1.2 for smaller FSAA G4

That's how the image was soothing, giving a chromic aberation.
I do not understand this obsession of focus and undulation of most 3D graphics.
Real photographs are not perfectly sharp, real photographs and fimly have film grain, digital matrix etc.
Below is another shot without postprocess.
It seems to me that the picture is not naturally sharp.
But as you can see it's a matter of taste.

Looks good. please remember always enable Trace Direct Light Reflection option and better AA.

Hi Artattak,

The second picture you show does indeed look very unnatural, but I don't think the reason is because of the sharpness per se. The anti-aliasing in your sharp picture is really terribly looking on the diagonals, and screams "digital", together with the noise on the textures. So yes, the second picture looks bad, but it's not because it is sharp. Also, the "impossible" camera angle of the second picture doesn't help alleviate the CGI feeling, of course.

As an interior design studio we do a lot of real interior shots, and our pictures are more often than not very, very sharp, but without any ugly noise on textures or diagonals. And I can assure that if we would have any kind of chromatic abberation that was really highly visible, we would require our photographers to reshoot, with better lenses.

I go agree, some artefacts like grain, vignetting and even chromatic abberation can enhance the real feeling of an image, but this amount of abberation on this type of image (the clean interior shot) does not work well in my opinion. It feels gimmicky to me. I have far from an obsession with perfectly sharp pictures, but the chromatic abberation looks a bit fake and post-processed to me, ruining the illusion of reality, and looking distractingly blurry in the process. It reminds me of the weird feeling you get when looking at the water in an aquarium.

As always, I admire your skills and wouldn't be able to do better myself, but I believe in honest criticism whenever I can address areas for improvement.

as a matter of fact both images are taken from an innatural point of view : they look more like axonometry rather than perspective.

giacob wrote:as a matter of fact both images are taken from an innatural point of view : they look more like axonometry rather than perspective.

Shots of this type are more popular and are perfect for showing the shapes of furniture. No deformation of the lens.
Below is one of the best CORONA graphics
Valentin Cgbandit Kuznetsov
Posoada amazing portvolio.
The Russians now set trends in the interior design style.
Below is the image that I used as a reference.

thomas wrote:Hi Artattak,

The second picture you show does indeed look very unnatural, but I don't think the reason is because of the sharpness per se. The anti-aliasing in your sharp picture is really terribly looking on the diagonals, and screams "digital", together with the noise on the textures. So yes, the second picture looks bad, but it's not because it is sharp. Also, the "impossible" camera angle of the second picture doesn't help alleviate the CGI feeling, of course.

As an interior design studio we do a lot of real interior shots, and our pictures are more often than not very, very sharp, but without any ugly noise on textures or diagonals. And I can assure that if we would have any kind of chromatic abberation that was really highly visible, we would require our photographers to reshoot, with better lenses.

I go agree, some artefacts like grain, vignetting and even chromatic abberation can enhance the real feeling of an image, but this amount of abberation on this type of image (the clean interior shot) does not work well in my opinion. It feels gimmicky to me. I have far from an obsession with perfectly sharp pictures, but the chromatic abberation looks a bit fake and post-processed to me, ruining the illusion of reality, and looking distractingly blurry in the process. It reminds me of the weird feeling you get when looking at the water in an aquarium.

As always, I admire your skills and wouldn't be able to do better myself, but I believe in honest criticism whenever I can address areas for improvement.

Sensible criticism is always welcome.
We also make traditional photographs.
Nevertheless, the most important is the climate, lighting, aberration and super sharpness in every place of the picture are third parties.
Below are a few photos of our implementation.