|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are too many renderer artifacts for it to be a photograph. Look
at the aliasing around the edge of the flamingo and in the waves closer
to the horizon. Notice that there are no secondary ripples in the water
around the legs of the flamingo. Note that the underside of the
flamingo doesn't appear to be lit by the reflection of the light from
the water.
It's certainly is a very nice render, though it could be made better if
it used better AA settings, a slightly more complicated water normal
pattern, and photons.
Peter D.
Skip Talbot wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
> but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
> Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
> source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
> simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Skip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah I'll buy that. How about the flamingo though?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph.
It definetely isn't a photograph.
A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/preview.aspx?ModelCode=755
Skip Talbot wrote:
> Yeah I'll buy that. How about the flamingo though?
>
> Skip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, thanks... this is all helping my comments/voting. Would have been
much easier if he just said so in the first place.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
> Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
>>to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
>>a photograph.
>
>
> It definetely isn't a photograph.
> A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
> or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
>
> But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
>
> Lutz-Peter
Yep, Floyd looks ok to me, but Way.jpg is pieces of photos layered in
Photoshop. Also theroad1.jpg states in the textfile that its a terragen
render with a POV tree layered in using GIMP. I suspect he simply
didn't read the rules. Too bad, since its actually pretty good.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow? Alpha output
from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:4137e40d$1@news.povray.org...
> I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow? Alpha output
> from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?
I was wondering that. I guess it's drawn but it's pretty convincing.
As for "way.jpg", I'm puzzled by the fact that it's such a boring photo! Surely
if you want to convince people that a photo is actually CG you take a more
interesting photo?
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would have guessed he just didn't understand the rules. But I see he took
the time to put down that he used 3DSMAX. Now could the building actually
be rendered? I know the sky is definitely a photo.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |