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

Christoph Hormann 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.  It is completely understandable that you try to use a more 
> balanced lighting.

   You are correct, as usual. I tried a more brighter outside, but then 
I was losing some detail on the windows and blinds.

> BTW you should stop smoking (and if i was working in that office you 
> would already have, or have quit the job.)

   I know, I know... but I'm well educated: I don't smoke at work or in 
public places. In fact, I smoke mostly when poving at home... :(

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message