The ceiling lighting is a bit too strong but overall I'm quite happy with
it.

Render time is ~38 hours

c&c welcome as usual :) 
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gallery-001.jpg' (190 KB)

Preview of image 'gallery-001.jpg'

Nice.

Should the railing be cutting into the pictures?  Also, the ceiling looks
about 50 feet high, which might be on purpose, but it seems like it
shouldn't be because the pictures are set so low on the wall.  The wall is
also a little bare above the pictures - it seems like there should be a fire
alarm or something up there.

"Ger" <ger### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40c804a1@news.povray.org...
> The ceiling lighting is a bit too strong but overall I'm quite happy with
> it.
>
> Render time is ~38 hours
>
> c&c welcome as usual :)
> -- 
> Ger

Post a reply to this message

On Thursday 10 June 2004 14:02, Ben Lauritzen wrote :

> Nice.

Thanks

> 
> Should the railing be cutting into the pictures?  

You're right, it shouldn't

> Also, the ceiling looks 
> about 50 feet high, which might be on purpose, but it seems like it
> shouldn't be because the pictures are set so low on the wall.

In a lot of museums/art galleries the walls are fairly high to let the art
shine out better

> The wall is 
> also a little bare above the pictures - it seems like there should be a
> fire alarm or something up there.
> 

You don't want to clutter the wall around a piece of art, but otoh, you are
right that the wall looks kinda empty.

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

40c8537f@news.povray.org...
>
> You don't want to clutter the wall around a piece of art, but otoh, you
are
> right that the wall looks kinda empty.
>
> --
I'd rise the pictures above the railing.
stools cast sharp shadows on the bottom of the wall, I know area_lights
arise render time but you could try with small ones

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Thursday 10 June 2004 14:52, Marc Jacquier wrote :

> I'd rise the pictures above the railing.

I did a bit of both, I raised the pictures a bit and dropped the rail.

> stools cast sharp shadows on the bottom of the wall, I know area_lights
> arise render time but you could try with small ones
> 
That was my mistake, those lights were test-lights that should have been
removed. They are now.

Thanks for you input :)


> Marc

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

40c85c1a@news.povray.org...
>
> Thanks for you input :)
>
Oh I forgot to tell I like your image :)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Thursday 10 June 2004 15:14, Marc Jacquier wrote :

> Oh I forgot to tell I like your image :)
> 
Thanks :)
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

"Ger" <ger### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40c804a1@news.povray.org...

Quite an eclectic group of pictures you have there. I've got to ask.
What's up with the ceiling? I can't figure it out. Looks like some sort
of energy field. Nice other than that. I don't like the chairs, but
that's just me.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Thursday 10 June 2004 18:00, "Shay" <rrr.rrr.r> wrote :

> 
> "Ger" <ger### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:40c804a1@news.povray.org...
> 
> Quite an eclectic group of pictures you have there. I've got to ask.
> What's up with the ceiling? I can't figure it out. Looks like some sort
> of energy field. 

The pattern you see on the ceiling is reflected/refracted light from the
pictures on the wall. The pictures are transparent and each has a 3x3 area
light behind it


> Nice other than that. I don't like the chairs, but 
> that's just me.

I kinda like the chairs myself, but they were basically foreground filling
and not all that important.

> 
>  -Shay

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

> The pattern you see on the ceiling is reflected/refracted light from the
> pictures on the wall. The pictures are transparent and each has a 3x3 area
> light behind it

I like this idea.  In line with what others have said maybe you should bring
the ceiling down so more of the "projected" images can be seen.

Dave.

Post a reply to this message