 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Not when you are an alien :-D
But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
people around you.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:24:22 +0200, Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org>
wrote:
> On 12-9-2014 5:43, And wrote:
>> But sometimes observation of other people will interrupt each other.
>> Why don't
>> you mind that?
>>
>
> Not when you are an alien :-D
>
Or an Observer...
> Thomas
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Not when you are an alien :-D
>
> But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> people around you.
>
> Thomas
Hmmm OK. Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > > Not when you are an alien :-D
> >
> > But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> > that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> > people around you.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Hmmm OK. Thank you.
Don't mind that guy staring at you. It's just Thomas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > > On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > > > Not when you are an alien :-D
> > >
> > > But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> > > that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> > > people around you.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >
> > Hmmm OK. Thank you.
>
> Don't mind that guy staring at you. It's just Thomas.
Ha :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
> > on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
>
> Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
very small error_bound?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.09.2014 22:11, schrieb And:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
>>> If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
>>> on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
>>
>> Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
>
> Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
> very small error_bound?
The short answer is "yes".
The somewhat longer answer begins with, "that certainly depends on your
scene."
One thing that no_cache does is make the scene grainy (but
"anti-aliasing" mode 3 can be used to good effect to counter this effect
as much as desired, and I actually like it because it gives the image a
more lively appearance.)
What you will /not/ have with no_cache is any type of splotchy
artifacts; for instance, radiosity scenes with small detail on otherwise
flat surfaces tend to have bright blotches in the crevices, which are
very difficult to counteract with radiosity settings. Not so with
no_cache: This rendering mode is true to the smallest detail (provided
you throw enough computing time at it, otherwise the details may drown
in random noise).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 16.09.2014 22:11, schrieb And wrote
> >
> > Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
> > very small error_bound?
>
> The short answer is "yes".
>
> The somewhat longer answer begins with, "that certainly depends on your
> scene."
>
> One thing that no_cache does is make the scene grainy (but
> "anti-aliasing" mode 3 can be used to good effect to counter this effect
> as much as desired, and I actually like it because it gives the image a
> more lively appearance.)
>
> What you will /not/ have with no_cache is any type of splotchy
> artifacts; for instance, radiosity scenes with small detail on otherwise
> flat surfaces tend to have bright blotches in the crevices, which are
> very difficult to counteract with radiosity settings. Not so with
> no_cache: This rendering mode is true to the smallest detail (provided
> you throw enough computing time at it, otherwise the details may drown
> in random noise).
Oh, thank you. I'm occupied these days. I will post my new renders if I have.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> #5 De Dulle Griet is a wip from 2007-2008. I stopped its development
> because of conflicting ideas I had about what the image would be in the
> end: In fact, a double image, one showing 'reality' (the copy I attach
> here) and one showing Cathy's imagination. I may revisit some day...
I am sorry, but I cannot hold it in any more. The child in the background keeps
reminding me of former senator Larry Craig of Idaho. (Google Craig wide
stance.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-9-2014 20:08, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I am sorry, but I cannot hold it in any more. The child in the background keeps
> reminding me of former senator Larry Craig of Idaho. (Google Craig wide
> stance.)
>
>
<grin>
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
