I've been fiddling with this old pic for over a month now,
and I need to start something new, but I thought somebody
might like it.

I think it's sufficiently different (better?) to merit a re-post.
The walls are my own terracotta-ish texture, The sun, Venus
and Saturn are my own models, Earth and the moon are
uv mapped, Mars is a simple projection of an image onto
a sphere.

I found much better, more accurate renderings of Saturn's
rings on the web but I still kind of like mine (they're done
with media, a radial density map and type 5 scattering).

The oil painting is by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1734-1797.
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/wright/wright.html
"A Philosopher Giving that Lecture on the Orrery in which
a Lamp is put in place of the Sun" (1766)
-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'orrery-med.jpg' (144 KB)

Preview of image 'orrery-med.jpg'

Excellent !

Post a reply to this message

_Light_Beam_ wrote:

> Excellent !

Thanks!
I've learnt a lot doing it.

I'm not really happy with it, from a compositional point of view,
too many distractions, like the bookcase and the arches,
but removing those makes the setting dull, so I'm at a loss as
to what to do to improve it.

best put it away for a while and start something else :-)

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

I really like it too, it must be a lot of work.

> I'm not really happy with it, from a compositional point of view,
> too many distractions, like the bookcase and the arches,
> but removing those makes the setting dull, so I'm at a loss as
> to what to do to improve it.

Maybe some focal blur, it would show better what to look at and add some 
more realistic looking to the image.
I would also improve a bit the book at first plane, scaling down a bit 
the crakle normal (+ turbulence 0.1) so that it's not so obvious that it 
is the all purpose crackle pattern and add thickness to the cover's 
corners and give them a leather texture.

> best put it away for a while and start something else :-)
Yes, I understand that, it seems that working too much on the same image 
drains out all artistic energy.

JC

Post a reply to this message

I just remember I found this page yesterday :
http://www.wozzeck.net/images/DoF_fr.html
It's a very interesting focal blur settings macro by Francois Dispot.
It's in french but the zip is down the page. It's four years old, but I 
found it yesterday, probably everybody knows it, but it was a discovery 
to me. :-))

JC

JC (Exether) wrote:
> I really like it too, it must be a lot of work.
> 
>> I'm not really happy with it, from a compositional point of view,
>> too many distractions, like the bookcase and the arches,
>> but removing those makes the setting dull, so I'm at a loss as
>> to what to do to improve it.
> 
> 
> Maybe some focal blur, it would show better what to look at and add some 
> more realistic looking to the image.
> I would also improve a bit the book at first plane, scaling down a bit 
> the crakle normal (+ turbulence 0.1) so that it's not so obvious that it 
> is the all purpose crackle pattern and add thickness to the cover's 
> corners and give them a leather texture.
> 
>> best put it away for a while and start something else :-)
> 
> Yes, I understand that, it seems that working too much on the same image 
> drains out all artistic energy.
> 
> JC
>

Post a reply to this message

JC (Exether) wrote:

> I really like it too, it must be a lot of work.

Thanks, yes quite a lot of work, evenings and weekends.

> 
> [...]
> 
> Maybe some focal blur, it would show better what to look at and add some
> more realistic looking to the image.

It's a thought, but the painting on the wall is at the same distance as the 
bookcase, and I want the painting to stay sharp. Maybe a slight ground
fog might work.

> I would also improve a bit the book at first plane, scaling down a bit
> the crakle normal (+ turbulence 0.1) so that it's not so obvious that it
> is the all purpose crackle pattern and add thickness to the cover's
> corners and give them a leather texture.

Agreed. I hadn't really realised how obvious the crackle is, and it doesn't
really look like leather either, just a first approximation.
The corners are already thicker than the book, but only by a tiny amount.
I can increase that.

> [...]
> 
> JC

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Brilliant work!

-- 
Rick

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

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

Post a reply to this message

Hi Bill!

Looks good, but the lighting needs improvement: your sun is an
extended light source, so
 - no shadows of the bars carrying the planets should be visible
   on the desk
 - the disk below the sun (on the desk) should be free of shadows
 - the shadow of the book in the foreground should be very soft
 - more than a half sphere of the planets should be lit (esp. Venus)
 - where is the shadow of the desk on the ground/walls?

Probably the best solution for the lighting is radiosity, but I
haven't worked with that yet.

I also would like so see some indication of how the planets and
the sun are floating above their supports: magnetism? transparent
material? riding on air streaming out of nozzles below the planets? electrostatic
repulsion? magic?

On the desk, between the signs for Pisces and Aries, a rectangular
area looks less "dusty" than the rest of the desk. Is that the
intended meaning?

As a last point I suggest to drastically reduce the camera's angle.
At the moment this angle introduces distortions to the picture
(visible esp. at the painting) which are correct for a viewing
distance of only some centimeters, but look wrong for normal
viewing distances.

If you put it away for a while: not too long, please; I'd like to
see the next steps of its evolution!

   Sputnik

Post a reply to this message

H Frank, thanks for your comments.



> Hi Bill!
> 
> Looks good, but the lighting needs improvement: your sun is an
> extended light source, so
>  - no shadows of the bars carrying the planets should be visible
>    on the desk

I agree, but an area light introduces too vague a shadow on the
rings of saturn. I'd pinned my hopes on a parallel light, but that
requires a pont_at statement :-(
I was trying to avoid letting the planets look too much "in the room"
as opposed to "in space", the harsh shadows on Saturn's rings
help there, I think.

>  - the disk below the sun (on the desk) should be free of shadows
>  - the shadow of the book in the foreground should be very soft
>  - more than a half sphere of the planets should be lit (esp. Venus)

same point vs area light issue, maybe a fairly tight area light would do it.

>  - where is the shadow of the desk on the ground/walls?

I made the table and planets except Saturn, and even the support for
venus no_shadow, otherwise it looks a mess: *lots* of shadows
all over the place. I'd love to think that the next povray release might
have a modifier for no_shadow that specifies a percentage.

> 
> Probably the best solution for the lighting is radiosity, but I
> haven't worked with that yet.

I have radiosity turned on, but that's just to soften the colours.
I've made a few attempts at radiosity without conventional lighting
on this pic but the sun needs lots of output, I'm not sure radiosity
alone can do it.

> I also would like so see some indication of how the planets and
> the sun are floating above their supports: magnetism? transparent
> material? riding on air streaming out of nozzles below the planets?
> electrostatic repulsion? magic?

Magic. :-)
I kind of disagree on this pont, I think the lack of connection is a sort
of statement in itself, the supports are all dead center on their planets
after all.

> 
> On the desk, between the signs for Pisces and Aries, a rectangular
> area looks less "dusty" than the rest of the desk. Is that the
> intended meaning?

well spotted, it's meant to show a previous position of the book.
I should really add some smearing in the dust to the current
position, and should maybe up the density of the dust a touch.

> 
> As a last point I suggest to drastically reduce the camera's angle.
> At the moment this angle introduces distortions to the picture
> (visible esp. at the painting) which are correct for a viewing
> distance of only some centimeters, but look wrong for normal
> viewing distances.

earlier versions had a much tighter angle, but the addition of that
set of columns receding into the distance looked bad, so the
current angle is a compromise.
Maybe it's not an optimal one.

> 
> If you put it away for a while: not too long, please; I'd like to
> see the next steps of its evolution!

Thanks!
I was really getting a bit tired of it, but I can feel a fresh wave
of enthusiasm coming on. I think I should lie down :-)

> 
>    Sputnik

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Rick [Kitty5] wrote:

> Brilliant work!
> 
Thanks!
-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message