|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Excellent!
I like the lighting and the semi-reflective floor.
And details like the curly cable of the telephone...
(Strange that I get the odd impression that the clock on the wall
is elliptical and wider than high...)
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wolfgang Wieser wrote:
> (Strange that I get the odd impression that the clock on the wall
> is elliptical and wider than high...)
That is most likely because of perspective camera is being used. Circles
are circles only in the center of the images.
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
>
> I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the
windows is not bright enough. Since the sun is shining outside
everything visible through the windows should be completely white. This
is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on a
photo. It is completely understandable that you try to use a more
balanced lighting.
BTW you should stop smoking (and if i was working in that office you
would already have, or have quit the job.)
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the
> windows is not bright enough. Since the sun is shining outside
> everything visible through the windows should be completely white. This
> is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on a
> photo.
Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things
(windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most likely
not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be totally white.
It is also possible to compress very wide brightness levels on a single
photo - either using traditional or digital darkroom techniques. Typical
Wal-Mart photos might be a different thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY
good.
BTW, in the left-most windows everything is actually quite white so stop
nitpicking ;-)
Regards,
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Severi Salminen wrote:
>> Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the
>> windows is not bright enough. Since the sun is shining outside
>> everything visible through the windows should be completely white.
>> This is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on
>> a photo.
>
> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things
> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most likely
> not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be totally white.
> It is also possible to compress very wide brightness levels on a single
> photo - either using traditional or digital darkroom techniques. Typical
> Wal-Mart photos might be a different thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY
> good.
Can you show a photograph to support this claim?
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Severi Salminen wrote:
>> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things
>> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most
>> likely not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be
>> totally white. It is also possible to compress very wide brightness
>> levels on a single photo - either using traditional or digital
>> darkroom techniques. Typical Wal-Mart photos might be a different
>> thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY good.
>
>
> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?
I don't know which claim do you mean (there were many) but here is one
that shows one digital technique:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml
With traditional film you can record easily a 13+ stop (1:2^13) range of
brightness levels in one negative frame and print them to look non-white
(ie. not "blown out" which you mean). This requires just some reduction
in film developement time (to decrease its contrast) and results lower
middle value contrast. There are also other techniques like: "burning",
"dodging", "pre-flashing" etc. So it is indeed not impossible at all.
The result depends also _how_ big the contrast difference in the scene
is. In Jaime's image the sun was shining also little to the room and
there were lamps in the ceiling. Also the nearby building was in shade
so the difference is not that big.
If I come up with a traditional photo that shows simultaneously a room
from inside and something outside I'll post the link to this thread.
Regards,
Severi S.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things
>> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most
>> likely not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be
>> totally white. It is also possible to compress very wide brightness
>> levels on a single photo - either using traditional or digital
>> darkroom techniques. Typical Wal-Mart photos might be a different
>> thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY good.
>
>
> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?
Here are some decent examples. I hope these are what you mean:
http://www.imagicdigital.com/interiors.html
BTW, It is likely that at least in some images the photographer used
flash lights. Not sure though.
Regards,
Severi Salminen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
D-fence wrote:
> I particularly like the pov sticker and the painting of one of your render
> with the oranges.
Thanks! I had to put something on the walls, and my images were just
here... But for the POV-Ray magazine I used "capriccio", as it was a bit
pretentious to put my own images on the cover. :)
> Are you smoker ?
Unfortunately... :( I'm not really a big smoker, so it must not be
that difficult to quit... someday.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Severi Salminen wrote:
>>
>> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?
>
>
> Here are some decent examples. I hope these are what you mean:
>
> http://www.imagicdigital.com/interiors.html
>
These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites
from several photographs). None on them looks like a realistic photo to me.
Remember: i am not saying you can't tweak a photo to look similar to
Jaime's render. I am just saying that the lighting in the scene is not
completely realistic and a photo of such a scenery that is not heavily
altered would look quite a bit different.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
George Pantazopoulos wrote:
> WOW! Jaime my jaw hit the floor when I say this... and it's still there
> :) I'm glad you finished it, this totally knocked my socks off.
Thanks!
> I like how it's very photorealistic, but at the same time has this
> surreal feel to it.. its hard to explain. Maybe it's the high color
> saturation, but I think it's something more than just that. In any case
> I love that look. Do you know what I mean?
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. I played decreasing the saturation
with Gimp and it looked more photographic, but also less interesting.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |