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

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites 
> from several photographs).  None on them looks like a realistic photo to 
> me.

That is because of what you expect. You seem to expect that the 
highlights are blown out and shadows are "blocked" (no details). That 
happens with 1 hour lab photos. But with other ways you can reduce that 
"effect" even without using composites. I desribed some of those methods 
in the other post.

> 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.

How about the third photo on this page:

http://www.smsu.edu/design/projects/Library2.htm

It at least resembles Jaime's photo distantly. But I see your point 
allthough IMO Jaime's image had quite realistic lighting that could've 
been seen in a "real" photo.

Severi Salminen

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
>> These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites 
>> from several photographs).  None on them looks like a realistic photo 
>> to me.
> 
> That is because of what you expect.

No, that's because they are physically impossible.  No photographic 
technique can generate a photo where a brightness difference of the 
scene in reality is inverted on the photo (i.e. a part brighter than a 
second one in reality is darker than the second one on the photo).

>> 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.
> 
> 
> How about the third photo on this page:
> 
> http://www.smsu.edu/design/projects/Library2.htm
> 
> It at least resembles Jaime's photo distantly. 

Not at all, the lighting situation is completely different - one whole 
wall of the room is windows - even without the covering of the windows 
Jaime's room would only have less than 1/3 of one wall as windows.

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

Reached epic proportions with this one, Jaime.

I like the subtle things, like the planter diffusing the sunlight onto the
phone and also back there at the file cabinet onto the bookcase.

Maybe everyone was laid off work until they learn to stop rendering with POV
on their computers? Looks like the nearest monitor shows this very scene in
POV-Ray, so perhaps the others are network-rendering.
:-)
Trying to think of what might could use a change... Those fluorescent
lights, possibly. I'd expect them to show the actual bulbs, with a
blue-green glow in the diffuser panels, since there's sunlight illuminating
the picture. Also, the ceiling panels could be textured, as many usually
are.

Really love how this image shows off what can be done with POV.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Jaw drops... wow...

There's a lot of detail there. Impressive,

Mola mucho :)

Fernando

Post a reply to this message

in news:ce0r1v$7l8$1@chho.imagico.de Christoph Hormann wrote:

> No, that's because they are physically impossible.  No photographic 
> technique can generate a photo where a brightness difference of the 
> scene in reality is inverted on the photo (i.e. a part brighter than a 
> second one in reality is darker than the second one on the photo).
> 

Actually, the guys at kodak etc. put a lot of effort in making film behave 
decently. Old, unbuffered film and also old TV camera's do exactly that. 
The gamma curve of a film doesn't stop at the shoulder. After it reached 
the top it goes down again. You can see the result in old photographs, 
where the sun is black instead of white. Also in old TV recordings it can 
be seen, the black highlights on trumpets for example.

For what Severi means, check out the "zone system", if you don't know it 
already. Every photograph has manipulated contrast.

Ingo

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.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Even though you bring to an epitome the patient building of quality 
scenes, this is a remarkable outcome.  An inspirational reminder to all 
of us who get frustrated if we don't get the result we wanted after the 
first week.

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.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)

The lighting seems unbalanced to me; the overhead lighting seems a bit 
too bright compared to the sunlight. In most offices that I've seen, if 
sunlight is streaming in through windows, the overhead lighting seems 
dim, almost nonexistent by contrast.

Aside from that, this is a beautiful image. Composition, modeling, 
texturing, and even lighting (even though I don't agree with it) are all 
  excellent, as usual.

-Xplo

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.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Phoos are not alowed here...
Seriously, the work is awesone... I never though somebody can make this 
kind of so beautyfull image with pov... It looks like reality ! Where is 
Gilles Tran ? Call him back !!! ;-))
-Respect-

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:
> 
> For what Severi means, check out the "zone system", if you don't know it 
> already. Every photograph has manipulated contrast.
> 

This is not about manipulating contrast, the examples Severi showed were 
clearly using selective manipulation of certain parts of images.

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