"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f71e857@news.povray.org...
|
| I haven't tried a daylight scene yet. Any pointers?

Radiosity + area_light.

|
| I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.

Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well below
you.lol

|
| Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.

I don't mean clutter. What I mean is decreasing the "size" of your scene
and in doing so decreasing the number of elements a viewer expects to
see. This removes the empty look of many scenes. The best example I can
think of is a picture gallery. If you were to model a picture gallery,
you would need a certain number of paintings for each unit space of
wall. If you hung a single bulb fixture in the middle of the ceiling,
then the viewer would expect the gallery to be bedroom sized, and you
would only need to include a few paintings. If you put in an exposed
beam ceiling with dozens of light fixtures, then the viewer would expect
the gallery to be stadium sized, and you would need to include hundreds
of paintings.

That's just stadium sized. A person sees a flat horizon at nine *miles*,
so when you show the unobscured horizon in your pictures, a viewer
expects to see many square miles worth of scene elements!! As large as a
mountain is, it's area is many many times smaller than the viewable flat
land it obscures. So, just by adding a mountain to your scene, you have
decreased the viewer's element expectation by over ninety-nine percent!!

It's can also be a good idea to limit the viewers "imagination eye" from
wondering off the sides of the picture. "Radio Graves" is a good
example. The sides of the fence around the radios is of course not
visible, but the imagination still recognizes it as a barrier. This is
why no partially cut-off radios are needed to suggest that the elements
continue. The elements don't need to continue, because they are not
expected to.

I've noticed that ninety-nine percent of pictures which show the horizon
are pictures of water, because a viewer's imagination expects water to
be empty and will not question a lack of elements over the many "miles"
he can see.

Of course, don't take my advice too seriously on this. I don't put
together pictures according to that formula at all!!!lol For "scenes",
however, I think this is the way to increase your score, though how you
could value a high score after seeing the results of the last round is
puzzling to me.

|
| I think I should have entered this...     :o[

Yeah, you've done exactly what I'm taking about. You've cut down the
area to only a few virtual square feet. I'll bet this picture would have
scored much higher that the one you did enter.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message