"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f72fb9a@news.povray.org...
>
> "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.

   Ok, that's fine, I'll give it a bash.


>
> |
> | I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.
>
> Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well
below
> you.lol

    Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
you one day... <g>

>
> |
> | 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

  Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then... but you're kidding
that I can't take this too seriously, it's great advice to me and
makes sense, and I've actually saved it to a text file. Thanks.



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 that it puzzled more than a few people...

>
> |
> | 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.

  My thoughts exactly.

    ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message