 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just thought that you might like to see the difference a field camera makes
to an architectural scene.
Bygning4.jpg is rendered directly from Ib's original code
Bygning4a.jpg is rendered using my FieldCam macro with rescaling turned on
Bygning4b.jpg is rendered using my FieldCam macro with rescaling turned off
I haven't anti-aliased because I ran these off this a.m. whilst trying to
dress, eat breakfast and shave all at the same time. *Thinks: Must buy a
working alarm-clock.*
John
--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Bygning4.jpg' (85 KB)
Download 'Bygning4a.jpg' (75 KB)
Download 'Bygning4b.jpg' (76 KB)
Preview of image 'Bygning4.jpg'
Preview of image 'Bygning4a.jpg'
Preview of image 'Bygning4b.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Excellent work, but am i correct in assuming there's also some unpleasant
warping of the brick texture even in the last example: is that actual
warping or a pixelation artifact?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:3e2440ef$1@news.povray.org...
> Excellent work, but am i correct in assuming there's also some unpleasant
> warping of the brick texture even in the last example: is that actual
> warping or a pixelation artifact?
>
>
Just pixellation artefacts, the image should really be rendered at 1500x1000
(and antialiased) for the best results.
I was just showing how my macro makes a difference to an architectural
scene.
John
--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <jgu### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:3e2410ea@news.povray.org...
A completely different look, and very appropriate for an architectural
display. Is this some time of orthographic camera sizing and orientation
macro?
I can see the difference between the resized and not pictures, but I'm not
sure what you are correcting with the resizing.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3e2410ea@news.povray.org...
> Just thought that you might like to see the difference a field camera
makes
> to an architectural scene.
Just in case you missed it, there's a file called "shear.pov" in the 3.5
distribution that address the "falling buildings" perspective problem and
shears the camera (it has been written by Fabien Mosen, who is an
architect).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I was just showing how my macro
> makes a difference to an architectural
> scene.
What are the tricks in this macro except changing the angle value?
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:02:09 +0100, "Hugo Asm" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:
> > I was just showing how my macro
> > makes a difference to an architectural
> > scene.
>
> What are the tricks in this macro except changing the angle value?
look at the comments at
http://news.povray.org/web.3e0c736a1f1273cdb29393de0%40news.povray.org
http://news.povray.org/web.3e181719eebaf7c4b29393de0%40news.povray.org
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
