So, this is the latest installment of my Worldbowl
Improvements.

Now, the room is lit mostly by Radiosity, with
the rad-light coming mainly from the spotlight of
the worldbowl.
Then there are some photons in the shadow of the
vase, but that's rather for realism than actual "visual
effect".
I've added another page to the notebook and
exchanged the pencil with the ink-pen from my
"2 Lonely" image.
The base of the bowl was changed, as was its
texturing.
And you might not notice, but the table now uses
blurred-reflections.

I think I'm gonna lower the effect of the radiosity
somewhat, and perhaps make the pigment on the
table darker, it looks a little muddy, and when lit,

issues on my to-do list, e.g. the window-frame and
the window-pane. I'm not sure if I should change a
lot about the walls.
Well, comments always appreciated. This last
image took about 24 hours to rendern, the histogramm
image looked really nice: totally black.
I'm thinking about getting some more light shine
through the clouds again, as their shadows are
in stark contrast now. I've become undecided about
the lighthouse again, though I might model some small
scale trees and plant them on the heightfield.

Ah well, this image needs some more tweaking, but
then I'll put it to rest for a while and do some other,
new stuff, to get detached again, in order to come back
with new and clean thoughts...

Well, enjoy!

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'worldbowl_24_02_03.jpg' (350 KB)

Preview of image 'worldbowl_24_02_03.jpg'

Excellent.

The table, if that's wood, looks a little too shiney for how desaturated it
is. If the wood had that much of a finish, I'd expect it to be darker
colored.

The only other thing I notice is that the cloud shadows are too sharp; you
should use an area light.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Interesting, as always, to follow the evolution of a scene. I was
particularly interested in your media approach to the clouds in the bowl,
since I like to play around with atmospherics alot in Pov.

I feel compelled to voice a few criticisms on the image, especially, since
it is clearly advancing to a higher level.

Regarding the world bowl: while it is an interesting and unusual object, I
am not compelled to _care_ about what it is doing in the image the same way
I am compelled by the flower or the moon. It needs to have something that
emotionally draws me to it.

Regarding the flower: after looking at it for a while, I wondered if it was
actually a kind of flower that would close at night. Should it?

Regarding the writing on the pad: it is stretching suspension of disbelief a
little too far to accept that the writing was done by the pen. An image map
of a your own hand-writing perhaps?

Finally, regarding the outdoors: I like the (almost hyper) realistic moon,
but should it be just a little focul blurred to keep me, the viewer, inside
the room? I don't really know how I would feel about that. However, as you
mentioned yourself, those clouds around the moon do need to be corrected.
The distant clouds are ok, but where the clouds are close to the moon and
thin, there needs to be some strong appearence of forward scattering in the
cloud.

Ok, now I'll take of my art critic hat now.

--
Abe
============
http://www2.taconic.net/bullfrog/sky
============

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3e596f69$1@news.povray.org...
>
> The only other thing I notice is that the cloud shadows are too sharp; you
> should use an area light.

Yes, softer shadows... however then it disrupts the idea of a sunlight being
shone on the surroundings. Not sure if it would be possible to get both
effects. There's little doubt that the lamp should be causing some softer
shadows.

Post a reply to this message

I would loose the moon, and replace it with a dim fuzzy desk lamp, suitable
enough so people will only notice it on second glance - worldbowl within a
worldbowl


--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

"Abe" <bul### [at] taconicnet> wrote in message
news:web.3e597cd65322c52f80835aa30@news.povray.org...
>
> Finally, regarding the outdoors: I like the (almost hyper) realistic moon,
> but should it be just a little focul blurred to keep me, the viewer,
inside
> the room? I don't really know how I would feel about that. However, as you
> mentioned yourself, those clouds around the moon do need to be corrected.
> The distant clouds are ok, but where the clouds are close to the moon and
> thin, there needs to be some strong appearence of forward scattering in
the
> cloud.
>

I agree.  Assuming that a "camera" snapped this shot, there is too much too
close in the foreground for the moon to be so tightly focused.

Focal Blur + Area Light for the final render. Then watch your render time
move from 24 hours to something you measure in days.

For the most part, it's really looking great now, though!  Good job!

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, it's only interesting as a recursion thing.   So make the moon more
desklamp like or the desk lamp more moonlike...

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3e59998e$1@news.povray.org...
> I would loose the moon, and replace it with a dim fuzzy desk lamp,
suitable
> enough so people will only notice it on second glance - worldbowl within a
> worldbowl

Post a reply to this message

Abe wrote:

> Regarding the world bowl: while it is an interesting and unusual object, I
> am not compelled to _care_ about what it is doing in the image the same way
> I am compelled by the flower or the moon. It needs to have something that
> emotionally draws me to it.
> 
I agree with Abe, i more or less feel the need to have something
living in the bowl. Some birds, men or dolphins would add to the scene. 
Only from then texture of the rock i think you aim for a rock of the
order of 1 km high or so. That would exclude any living organisms.
on such a scale only a village would be visible. And if at night
possibly some ribbon of light by the roads. Then again from the lighting
it is not clear if you aim for a day or a night view.

Anyway I like it very much.

	Andrel

Post a reply to this message

@Slime and @hughes

I know, softer shadows... Area-light is kinda tracing intensive
when used with media, so since this was just one complete run
to check if everything still holds together, I didn't use it. Of course
it'll be used for the real final image, and if it takes a month
to trace!

As for the table, I'm not really satisfied yet. If I make it
much darker, it might break the color-composition of the
original image, and I tend to make small steps towards
changes. But I agree, a little darker might be a good
step.

Thanks for the comments, and thanks for the praise!

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

> I know, softer shadows... Area-light is kinda tracing intensive
> when used with media, so since this was just one complete run
> to check if everything still holds together, I didn't use it. Of course
> it'll be used for the real final image, and if it takes a month
> to trace!


Be sure to use light_groups to avoid casting an area light on the scattering
media. Use a point light for the scattering media, and an area light for
solid surfaces.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message