 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
1 h 50 m 58 s render time without the excessive light funness,
though the primary spotlight is an area light.
Please submit any suggestions/comments before I embark on
another week-long attempt to render it with the scattering
media and photons.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'balcony2.jpg' (105 KB)
Preview of image 'balcony2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I suggest that you brighten it up even more and attempt to make the colors
more vibrant, especially because the media will reduce the amount of
color/light that reaches the camera.
I especially suggest that you brighten the angel itself, as that seems to be
the focus of the picture, and she's sort of grey colored.
Consider adding another light (without media interaction, perhaps even
shadowless) to fill in the dark areas. I would suggest placing it
asymmetrically, too.
Overall, the image just seems to dark for the subject matter. Maybe you
intended that, but if not, keep working on the lighting.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> especially because the media will reduce the amount of
> color/light that reaches the camera.
Not if you have the media absorbtion be -0.05 to its
scattering 0.05 it won't. ;)
> Overall, the image just seems to dark for the subject matter. Maybe you
> intended that, but if not, keep working on the lighting.
See attached image as what most of the pic looks like WITH
the fancy scattering media. (Since most of your comments have
to do with the lighting which is considerably different once
the scattering media with photons comes into play)
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'untitled.jpg' (70 KB)
Preview of image 'untitled.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> See attached image as what most of the pic looks like WITH
> the fancy scattering media. (Since most of your comments have
> to do with the lighting which is considerably different once
> the scattering media with photons comes into play)
Wow, yeah, that *is* brighter. I guess the negative absorption does it.
Is negative absorption the same as emission?
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> Is negative absorption the same as emission?
Nope. Emission simulates the media actually generating
energy, whereas absorption simulates removal of energy;
removal of negative energy isn't exactly the same as
generating energy, it's more of a cancelling force than
an additive force.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouth net> wrote in message
news:3eb19b77@news.povray.org...
> Slime wrote:
> > Is negative absorption the same as emission?
>
> Nope. Emission simulates the media actually generating
> energy, whereas absorption simulates removal of energy;
> removal of negative energy isn't exactly the same as
> generating energy, it's more of a cancelling force than
> an additive force.
Surely it's more of a multiplying force? so things viewed through negative
absorption will have their colour increased by it, multiplicitavely. i.e. black
things will stay black which they won't with emission.
It's a nice effect in any case :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Surely it's more of a multiplying force? so things viewed through negative
> absorption will have their colour increased by it, multiplicitavely. i.e.
black
> things will stay black which they won't with emission.
Is that how it works? I know that emission is additive, but i never figured
out how absorption works. I imagine it involves some sort of complicated
integral, since it seems to be sort of like an infinite number of
nearly-transparent thin layers.
I always wonder about the math behind these things.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well absorption works exactly the same as black fog. I worked the maths out for
fog once:
For example, if visibility at 1 metre is 90%, then at 2 metres it will be 90% of
90%, i.e. 81%. Basically visibility = pow( visibility at distance of 1,
distance )
Absorption is kind of the other way round, so if you have 10% absorption you
have 90% visibility (though don't ask me how pov's density and stuf comes into
it). So, negative absorption actually increases visibility!
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message news:3eb1a665$1@news.povray.org...
> > Surely it's more of a multiplying force? so things viewed through negative
> > absorption will have their colour increased by it, multiplicitavely. i.e.
> black
> > things will stay black which they won't with emission.
>
>
> Is that how it works? I know that emission is additive, but i never figured
> out how absorption works. I imagine it involves some sort of complicated
> integral, since it seems to be sort of like an infinite number of
> nearly-transparent thin layers.
>
> I always wonder about the math behind these things.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks nice. Makes me think of Anne Rice for some reason. Maybe the mix
of balcony and metaphysics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:3eb186c6@news.povray.org...
The balcony railing looks to me to be conspicuosly non-detailed when
compared to the nice detail level of the rest of the image.
-Shay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
