> I like the table idea better, but i think the lighting should be constant.
> either no real lights and have pure radiosity lighting or have some lights
> that cause pretty short shadows so shadows don't get cut off at the table
> "edges" between individual tiles. If you have scenes with different
> lighting, the brightness of the table will be different in each scene.

IMHO pre-defined lights and background are too restrictive
conditions. Usually different objects need different set of
lights and their positions. Also in this case you cannot use
lighting from smth. like Tiffany table lamps, candles etc. :)

> I also think 800x600 is way to big for something that could be a very long
> string of images. 400x300 maybe. 640x480 is even big if you have 20 images
> side by side.

I think homepage should have a strip of images of size 320*240.
Clicking on any image will bring high resolution image 800*600.
Usually 640*480 is not enough for detailed image.

> Also, as far as isowood, isn't isowood pretty time consuming?

Right, I should say wood textures developed by Christoph.

> I was even imagining instead of a table, having a conveyor belt/assembly
> line kind of surface. It would offer easier tiling i think. but a table
> might look nicer.

Maybe only table object should be defined and should stay
unchanged through all images(?) And authors could assign to it
any texture which they think is more appropriate to their
image. The whole strip of images will be very eclectic in this
case but I don't think it's too bad in this case :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message