 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...this time with my piano keys from an old scene. It took 11 hours
using only 2 threads on an AMD Phenom II X4 955, but the scene has a 6x6
area light, OutdoorHQ radiosity, and 49 focal blur samples... yeah, it's
slow, but it gives a really nice touch.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'teclado-sslt-01.jpg' (54 KB)
Download 'teclado-no-sslt-01.jpg' (55 KB)
Preview of image 'teclado-sslt-01.jpg'
Preview of image 'teclado-no-sslt-01.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> ...this time with my piano keys from an old scene. It took 11 hours
> using only 2 threads on an AMD Phenom II X4 955, but the scene has a 6x6
> area light, OutdoorHQ radiosity, and 49 focal blur samples... yeah, it's
> slow, but it gives a really nice touch.
>
> --
> Jaime
Wonderful and a very nice touch indeed! But excuse a question. The black keys
seems to have no SSLT. Is there a reason to it? I just took a look at my long
abandoned organ and they seem to have the same SSLT as the white but only
another colour.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/08/12 21:07, MichaelJF wrote:
> Wonderful and a very nice touch indeed! But excuse a question. The
> black keys seems to have no SSLT. Is there a reason to it? I just
> took a look at my long abandoned organ and they seem to have the same
> SSLT as the white but only another colour.
I just thought that on a dark material it would be barely noticeable,
so I saved the render time... :) but will try it just to see how it
comes out.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...this time with my piano keys from an old scene. It took 11 hours
> using only 2 threads on an AMD Phenom II X4 955, but the scene has a 6x6
> area light, OutdoorHQ radiosity, and 49 focal blur samples... yeah, it's
> slow, but it gives a really nice touch.
>
> --
> Jaime
A 6x6 area light? Why not a 9x9 or even 17x17 or 33x33 using adaptive 0?
In this case, adaptive 0 don't realy risk to cause any visible
artefacts, and willbe much faster while giving you smoother penumbras.
For Michael, your organ probably have plastic keys.
For most classic pianos, the white keys are ivory and the black ones are
maogany or black dyed hard wood if it's a cheap one. Whites have SSLT,
blacks don't have any, or so little that it can be ignored.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-8-2012 20:17, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> ...this time with my piano keys from an old scene. It took 11 hours
> using only 2 threads on an AMD Phenom II X4 955, but the scene has a 6x6
> area light, OutdoorHQ radiosity, and 49 focal blur samples... yeah, it's
> slow, but it gives a really nice touch.
>
Very good indeed! Now even better would be to show the wear of the keys
and a yellowish ivory tint on the white ones: i. e. an old piano; this
one looks too new and too plastic ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.08.2012 20:17, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> ...this time with my piano keys from an old scene. It took 11 hours
> using only 2 threads on an AMD Phenom II X4 955, but the scene has a 6x6
> area light, OutdoorHQ radiosity, and 49 focal blur samples... yeah, it's
> slow, but it gives a really nice touch.
Looks like a typical photo from the advertising I get regularly from my
musical instruments dealer. If this is your goal it is perfect!
I for one would prefer to see an old bar piano with used ebony and ivory
keys - and the patina of hundreds of smoked cigars on it ;)
And I completely fail to see how just 11 hours is slow...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/08/12 02:37, Alain wrote:
> A 6x6 area light? Why not a 9x9 or even 17x17 or 33x33 using
> adaptive 0? In this case, adaptive 0 don't realy risk to cause any
> visible artefacts, and willbe much faster while giving you smoother
> penumbras.
I've used always "jitter adaptive 1" for years... wouldn't "adaptive
0" shot more rays, thus being slower?
> For Michael, your organ probably have plastic keys. For most classic
> pianos, the white keys are ivory and the black ones are maogany or
> black dyed hard wood if it's a cheap one. Whites have SSLT, blacks
> don't have any, or so little that it can be ignored.
I just tested, and SSLT with an almost black pigment doesn't get much
noticeable, almost no difference at all. I guess the light would have to
be very close to the object to have an appreciable effect.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/08/12 08:56, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Very good indeed! Now even better would be to show the wear of the
> keys and a yellowish ivory tint on the white ones: i. e. an old
> piano; this one looks too new and too plastic ;-)
Yeah... but I was taking as reference my Korg Wavestation EX, which is
still almost new... :)
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/08/12 11:10, Ive wrote:
> Looks like a typical photo from the advertising I get regularly from
> my musical instruments dealer. If this is your goal it is perfect!
I guess that, in regards to composition, I work unconsciously with
stereotypical images...
> I for one would prefer to see an old bar piano with used ebony and
> ivory keys - and the patina of hundreds of smoked cigars on it ;)
>
Yes, it would make for a very nice scene... I'm already making
something very close. :)
> And I completely fail to see how just 11 hours is slow...
But you proved to have patience, a virtue with which I was not gifted
at birth...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.08.2012 14:43, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> On 28/08/12 02:37, Alain wrote:
>> A 6x6 area light? Why not a 9x9 or even 17x17 or 33x33 using
>> adaptive 0? In this case, adaptive 0 don't realy risk to cause any
>> visible artefacts, and willbe much faster while giving you smoother
>> penumbras.
>
> I've used always "jitter adaptive 1" for years... wouldn't "adaptive
> 0" shot more rays, thus being slower?
>
To the contrary: It typically shoots fewer of them, four in the ideal
case. The adaptive parameter isn't a boolean that turns adaptive on, but
a numeric value governing the minimum number of rays to shoot:
0 -> 2x2
1 -> 3x3
2 -> 5x5
3 -> 9x9
4 -> 17x17
...
N -> (2^N +1)x(2^N +1)
As for the 6x6 area light, if you use the "adaptive" keyword you'll
automatically get a 9x9 area light instead.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
