From: Skip Talbot
Subject: Re: Two different radioisity settings with blobby people.
Date: 24 Dec 2004 02:43:12
Message: <41cbc890@news.povray.org>
Contrast is a good thing, Greg. I'd lean towards the one on the left, but
think it might be a little too harsh. Have you tried some intermediate
assumed_gamma levels or different lighting?
Skip
From: Greg M Johnson
Subject: Re: Two different radioisity settings with blobby people.
Date: 24 Dec 2004 10:46:14
Message: <41cc39c6$1@news.povray.org>
Great idea. I figgered someone would offer up a clue to a new concept to
try-- I hadn't even thought of gamma.
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:41cbc890@news.povray.org...
> Contrast is a good thing, Greg. I'd lean towards the one on the left, but > think it might be a little too harsh. Have you tried some intermediate > assumed_gamma levels or different lighting?>> Skip>
From: Greg M Johnson
Subject: Re: Two different radioisity settings with blobby people.
Date: 25 Dec 2004 22:36:21
Message: <41ce31b5$1@news.povray.org>
Light groups!
12 lights (as light groups) renders faster than anything else I tried over
the past week, and gives perhaps an equally dramatic and realistic
presentation as does radiosity.
"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj;-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:41cc39c6$1@news.povray.org...
> Great idea. I figgered someone would offer up a clue to a new concept to> try-- I hadn't even thought of gamma.>> "Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message> news:41cbc890@news.povray.org...>> Contrast is a good thing, Greg. I'd lean towards the one on the left, >> but>> think it might be a little too harsh. Have you tried some intermediate>> assumed_gamma levels or different lighting?>>>> Skip>>>>
com> wrote in message
news: