cities2forest

[Racc Iria]

Any of them, as long as it's a complete matching set. Meaning, the DEM image used to generate the terrain in Terragen, the image that you rendered from Terragen, and the photo that you're trying to match it to.

--Racc

[Kraellin]

i'm on my way out for now, but caught your post, so i'll give you some quick answers.

generally, if you watch an oil painting artist paint, they start on the background first and work forward. this is because they are going to cover up portions of the painting as they work. it's just MUCH easier than working from the foreground to the background.

for creating shadows, the first thing that comes to mind is adding a new blank raster layer to your image. paint it black or nearly black. then, simply adjust the opacity setting of the layer to be more transparent (less opaque). this will allow the underlying layer to show through and essentially blend your black layer with the base layer giving the impression of a shadow wherever you have the black painted. there's more to it, but that's the basic part.

the glow can be done several ways. in subtracting it, make a selection around the area you want to remove the glow from and simply use a channel mixing or color blending tool to reduce the blue effect. i used the Fast Fix plugin to do it on your terragen image and it worked quite well. i selectively masked the area i wanted to change, changed the mask into a selection and applied fast fix to the selection. when you have a selection up like that and apply something to the image, it ONLY affects the part in the selection. once you have what you want, you simply kill the selection and your change is imparted to the image.

in adding glow back, additive this time, this can also be done several ways. again, the simplest way is probably with adding a blank raster layer like we did with the shadows. only this time, it's going to be a glow we're creating instead of a shadow. the trick is to paint in something that will come across as a glow when we make this layer less opaque. several things come to mind for that. you could 'add noise' and blur it. you could simply paint something in, a white with a blue tint here and there or something else. this doesnt have to be exact. and it most probably wants to be 'hazed' or blurred. so, simply use a blur tool, like soften or gausian, and blur this 'haze'. you might also want to vary the density of the paint when creating it. the density setting exists for almost any brush you paint with. think of it as how many bristles on a brush have actual paint on them. so, when you paint, if the density is turned down, you wont actually be painting a solid line. it will have misses here and there depending on the density setting. once blurred, this shld give a varying haze look to your applied image.

layers are like pieces of paper stacked on top of each other. the thing that makes them work is the opacity setting. a solid image sitting on top of another is only going to show the top 'piece of paper'. but these pieces of paper have an adjustable opacity to them that you can alter. thus, if you can partially see through the top layer, you get the effect that the underlying layer shows through and 'blends' seemingly, with the other layer. i know you know part of this, but i'm not sure how much, so forgive me if i'm 'talking down' to you or going over things you already know.

you might also be able to affect your glow with 'adjustment layers', but we can take that up later

Then, to get the haze back, i experimented by creating a lightblue gradient semi transparent layer and placing it over the entire pic, but i didnt like that very much.

play with that some more. that's exactly what i'm talking about. try different degrees of paint and tints and opacities on the layer. try some blurring or adding noise and blurring. there's more you can do here to vary this, but that involves masks, and like i said, i'm heading out the door here

Craig

[doonee]

racc
yes, of course
ill get you a matching ter, tgw + reference pic


(would you like textures and footage as well ?)
(whats your preferred terrain size ?)

rgds
d

[doonee]

craig ...
np.

no rush ...

[Racc Iria]

(would you like textures and footage as well ?)

Yes, everything you're working with. Once we can see that we'll have a better understand of the challenge you're facing.

(whats your preferred terrain size ?)

Ideally, the size you intend your final output to be. However, we'll have to settle for the size limitation here unless you can host the originals somewhere else and provide a link from which to download them.

--Racc

[doonee]

racc
in terms of hosting, size is not a problem ....
(ill send you a url/pw)

what i meant was that you have to be regged with TG
in order to use larger than 1024x1024 terrains ....

or would you like me to export a BMP from TG as DEM ?

rgds + thnks
d

[Racc Iria]

what i meant was that you have to be regged with TG
in order to use larger than 1024x1024 terrains ....

or would you like me to export a BMP from TG as DEM ?

I guess just export the BMP if I understand you correctly. With this one I just wanted to take a look at the 2D grayscale image of the height/elevation data.

With the other images I'm interested to see if I can do what it is I think you're wanting. That way, I'll have a better understanding of your task.

--Racc

[doonee]

sure.

ill get you a representative kit.
(mind that the Terragen route is just one route, and that it principal purpose is to fake the POV of the reference pic)

and thanks for all the effort. !!

rgds
d

[doonee]

craig.

here is a sample of how the region looks today.
its not always that bad, and there is an issue of seasonality as well. however, historical and biological data suggest that the region was once covered by a closed-canopy seasonal forest, and that hidrogeography, strongly altered by open air mining, was different from today (the watercycle was more voluminous).
Whatever.
Hope this gives you a feel.

Mind, as i said before, that the TerraGen approach is 'inherited' from experimenting with 3D apps, and by all means not imperative for a Photoediting approach.

For example, when working the Terragen road on this pic, i would first try to mimic the exact POV of this reference pic.
But the same thing that sacc said before about the distant haze in the final - that its easier to turn 'distant haze' off in Terragen than trying to remove it from the render- also goes for mimicking the POV in most cases:
Its of course easier to get to work directly on the reference pic than coming up with the effort to mimick its POV in TG, which, at best, gives you nothing better but same.

So, the point is that, if i knew how, i would go and paste my forests straight onto this reference pic i posted just now.

I could show you some of my forest footage, i you like, to give you a better idea of *what* i mean to paste into these pics.


TG comes in when you would want to alter the landscape, glaciate it for instance.
Or, when you want a POV that you dont have a reference-picture of, which is something i have learned to try to keep my hands away from for this project. As fantastic the POVs are that I can produce, people have a hard time recognizing them, for whatever reason. (They dont take too many planes, i guess. Or they dont look out of the window if they do, who knows.)

Terragen is also very valuable when it comes to faking Satellite Imagery, since it allows you to make 'your own' orthographic sat pics, which then one could go on to manipulate and retexture. (But i did not get to this - yet.)

rgds + thnks 4 all
d

[doonee]

@ racc
we're having rain and power cuts down here,
but ill get you your kit today

(mind that i cant include the POv if i send you a BMP)


d

[Racc Iria]

Okay, I think we're talking in circles here. I think we're all talking about the same thing but using different terminology. And I think it's making things overly complicated. So, let me state what my understanding of the situation is and feel free to correct me if and where I'm wrong.

Here goes...

Doonee, you're doing some work for the Brazillian Historical Society and want to show how the landscape has changed over the years due to deforestation, expansion, and construction, etc. To accomplish this you want to have a series of before and after pictures of the landscape to indicate just how much things have changed. In collecting the images for this series you discovered that in some instances you had both historical photographs and modern photographs from the same or similar points of view. And with the historical photos you do have, you'd like to restore/colorize them so they more closely match the modern photos.

On the other hand, you also discovered that in many instances all you had were modern photographs and no historical images from the same point of view. So, to that end you want to "re-create" the historical photos by either altering the modern photo to look as it would have had a historical photo been taken from that same point of view, or using a 3D application such as MAX, Terragen, or Vue51 to generate the base photo and add historical vegetation to it (taken from other photographic sources) and getting as close to photorealism as possible.

Let me know if I have summarized the situation correctly. If so, I have a few more questions, and based on the answers may be able to make a few suggestions that would simplify the task.

--Racc

[doonee]

@racc
i sent you private msg with the pw to download a file.
rgds

[doonee]

racc

-didn't see your post before posting my last msg., sorry-

You want to have a series of before and after pictures.

Yes, leave out the Brazilian Historical Society, and you summarized the rest so well that it hardly needs any addition.

Theres only two things Id feel like adding.

1
Usually people do not take photographs before they deforest a landscape, nor did they paint pictures in past times. Therefore, visual documentation of these changes is usually very scarce.
Also, without storing their memory in visual art etc., people tend to forget
rather quickly, hence the general fascination for old pictures etc..
Ive noticed that any single one of these graphics creates a comparatively larger impact than 50 sentences written about the subject, provided that this graphic is percieved as depicting a particular location, ie that it is 'recognized'.
Why, because it gets the fantasy of the person going.
I think this is a great example of visual communication, i wouldnt like to miss that in my work, and i dont care too much which application i use to get there.

2
The work extends back to times before photographs and even paintings.
The DEM approach is therefore choosen in an attempt to create a pipeline for a fairly wide range of different kinds of images, as some of the forested areas were wastelands during the ice age, for example. Recognizable POVs in these
cases are less important and less probable, but still interesting in terms of visual communication. Anyways, this goes to explain how DEM work got into the story in the first place.

I think we're all talking about the same thing but using different terminology.

I was wondering about this as well.
But you said you wanted a DEM, right ?

regards and thanks !

d

[Racc Iria]

Okay. First let me say that I currently work in the TV/video production field as a graphic artist. But, I have also worked as videographer, photographer, editor, director, etc. So, the following questions may sound a little silly, but are typical production type questions.

I completely agree with you... visuals have a tremendous impact when it comes to getting the message across. Nothing can communicate an idea or concept clearer or faster than a good image (moving or still).

The task you have before you is quite daunting, even when you have a good command of the proper tools to use. It won't be easy.

1. So, my first questions is this... How important is it really to have absolute photorealism in the recreated historical photos? The reason I ask this is because in my industry we face the same type of situation all the time. We'll want to document something, but there is no visual record available and no way to shoot it. The typical solution here is to generate an animation or artistist's rendering when actual imagery doesn't exist or can't be obtained. You see this a lot, especially with scientific analysis. So, in your situation where you don't have historical photos, wouldn't an artististic rendering be acceptable, especially if based on real data and research?

2. Concerning the recognizability of the landscape... (and you may have thought of this) What if you were to present the more recognizable modern image first, then present them with the historical image (real or recreated)? I think that this might raise the recognition rate of the historical image since the honus of recognition wouldn't rely so heavily on an unfamiliar landscape. People would be able to pick out the points of similarity much more easily if they start with what they know, and at the same time, it would probably give the historical image even greater impact making your message even stronger. And in reference to question 1, would seem to lessen the need for true photorealism since you wouldn't be relying on the historical photo for that recognition.

3. Concerning the need to have the historical photos look like modern photos... I suppose this would be a matter of personal taste, but would not images that looked historical (aged) have more impact on the viewer? If the two images looked modern, the historical one might be more easily confused with a modern image that was taken at a different location. Whereas an aged historical image might be more of a visual cue that this image is of the same place but represents the past. And following that logic, it would also make the recreations easier because by doing them in grayscale or sepia tone, etc. problems like the blue cast would become less of an issue.

Well, that's all I can think of at the moment. These questions are not designed to try and dissuade you from trying to recreate modern looking photorealistic historical images, but rather to help you (and me) think about the message you want to convey and the most impactful way to do it without driving ourselves completely mad in the process. Getting these recreations to look absolutely photorealistically perfect is going to be quite a difficult task, even for a seasoned professional. The question then becomes... is it necessary? If so, we'll do our best. But, if not, then many more options (like some of the above) make themselves available.

--Racc

[Kraellin]

along with what racc just said, i was thinking a rollover would also be a good way to show the 'before' and 'after', especially if the pov is the same.

another help in things like this, is to make it real to the viewer. if they can see their house or surrounding area as a before and after, it personalizes it for them. a shot of a bare, remote area they know nothing about might get their attention for a small bit, but not like if they can see how things looked before their house or school or place of business was there.

Craig