i can only second this.
in a normal image creation process we use roughly 50% of the project time for 3d and the remaining 50% for 2d post work.
most important are good channels and the ability to render out 'tools' for the post process.
well, thanks for the links - quite interesting :)
Great find Ronen, I remember just not so long ago, this kind of detailed breakdown of a rendering was kept in secret.
It is true, most of the 3D firms follow the same technique, because it saves time fixing client's comments. But this technique has more of a matte painting finish to it and is a bit old-school. Sometimes the renderings I see from well known firms end up looking a bit flat, especially the trees. The firms I used to work at exploited this technique a lot, sometimes to the point of using scan-line render to get just a shape of the building and then matte-paint everything in, including reflections and such.
First one is amazing! some other are less. Intresting to see that we all seem to share the same techniques. Would be intresting to see detailed explanations of some parts of the process.
Thanks goes to you Gordon for sharing your technique the way you did! It's always nice to see how others go about creating their artwork.
Very interesting indeed! Gordon works at StudioAMD and it is nice to see how some of their production images are made... it seems a lot is left for post, more then I would have thought.
I guess this saves a great amount of time then doing it all in render, and also when revisions are needed. I can also see how this can be more artistically productive as you can explore many options in a painting style instead of the limits of re-rendering again and again.
As much as I want to do it all in render, like peter for example usually does... I tend to prefer this method of work.