clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
> nonetheless...

These look great, is that just standard lighting? It looks too good for that to
me but the reflection of the sphere suggests it is.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

Am 08.03.2015 um 00:34 schrieb s.day:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
>> nonetheless...
>
> These look great, is that just standard lighting? It looks too good for that to
> me but the reflection of the sphere suggests it is.

No image-based lighting involved, if that's what you mean - just a large 
area light and a simple sky sphere. It does, however, make use of 
UberPOV's uncached radiosity and blurred reflections.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 08.03.2015 um 00:34 schrieb s.day:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> >> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
> >> nonetheless...
> >
> > These look great, is that just standard lighting? It looks too good for that to
> > me but the reflection of the sphere suggests it is.
>
> No image-based lighting involved, if that's what you mean - just a large
> area light and a simple sky sphere. It does, however, make use of
> UberPOV's uncached radiosity and blurred reflections.

"uncached radiosity" ?

is that just progressive rendering?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/03/2015 5:36 AM, clipka wrote:
> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
> nonetheless...
>

Wow.   Excellent finish for this sort of render.  Not totally like the 
real thing but sort of 'hyper real'.  Low it.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2015 06:48 AM, Mr wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 08.03.2015 um 00:34 schrieb s.day:
>>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
>>>> nonetheless...
>>>
>>> These look great, is that just standard lighting? It looks too good for that to
>>> me but the reflection of the sphere suggests it is.
>>
>> No image-based lighting involved, if that's what you mean - just a large
>> area light and a simple sky sphere. It does, however, make use of
>> UberPOV's uncached radiosity and blurred reflections.
>
> "uncached radiosity" ?
>
> is that just progressive rendering?
>

from changes.txt:

Unbiased Diffuse Illumination:
------------------------------

   - UberPOV allows to disable the caching of radiosity samples, by 
using the
     following syntax in the global radiosity block:

         no_cache [BOOL]

     It also changes the way the secondary ray directions are chosen, and
     effectively turns the radiosity algorithm into a purely stochastic 
unbiased
     algorithm to compute diffuse illumination.

     Most radiosity settings are without effect in this mode, except for the
     following:

         adc_bailout FLOAT
         brightness FLOAT
         brilliance BOOL
         count FLOAT
         gray_threshold FLOAT
         media BOOL
         normal BOOL
         recursion_limit INT
         subsurface BOOL

     The current implementation does not translate classic radiosity 
settings
     into useful parameters for this mode of operation; it is therefore 
highly
     recommended to use a much lower setting for the "count" parameter than
     typical with standard radiosity.

     This syntax extension can be tested for using the #patch directive or
     patch() function with the patch name "upov-radiosity-no_cache"; the 
current
     implementation is version 0.1.

from revision.txt
-----------------

Commit 21cc3c6 on 2014-07-24 by Christoph Lipka

     Add support for stochastic diffuse computations.

     Specifying `no_cache` in the global radiosity block will disable 
caching of radiosity samples,
     and use a more random algorithm to generate secondary ray 
directions, effectively using the
     radiosity code for straightforward stochastic computation of 
diffuse illumination.

Post a reply to this message

This looks great.

I posted a link to this thread onto the LDraw forums and it has generated 
some further comments:
http://forums.ldraw.org/read.php?20,14335,16426#msg-16426

I've tried doing some renders with UberPov using your suggested Plastic 
finish settings, but I can't seem to get the same kind of result that you've 
achieved (maybe it's the focul blur that I'm missing).

I would like try some more UberPov renders using the LDraw models that I've 
already converted to POV-Ray - could you share the full code for your 
example picture.

BTW - I couldn't get the latest version of UberPov to work - it kept 
crashing (I'm using 64-bit Windows 8)

Reuben


"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote in message 
news:54f750ca@news.povray.org...
> Obviously these are cheap imitations, but I thought I might share
> nonetheless...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.06.2015 um 23:17 schrieb Reuben Pearse:

> I would like try some more UberPov renders using the LDraw models that I've
> already converted to POV-Ray - could you share the full code for your
> example picture.

See povray.binary.scene-files.

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.06.2015 um 23:39 schrieb clipka:
> Am 04.06.2015 um 23:17 schrieb Reuben Pearse:
>
>> I would like try some more UberPov renders using the LDraw models that
>> I've
>> already converted to POV-Ray - could you share the full code for your
>> example picture.
>
> See povray.binary.scene-files.

Sorry: povray.binaries.scene-files.

Post a reply to this message

I created an image using most of your settings as well as the LGEO part 
library. I am not as impressed however. I guess from a distance the 
details are not as noticeable.

Michael

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'building_007_firecompany_uber_04.png' (2155 KB)

Preview of image 'building_007_firecompany_uber_04.png'

Am 20.09.2015 um 04:30 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> I created an image using most of your settings as well as the LGEO part
> library. I am not as impressed however. I guess from a distance the
> details are not as noticeable.

My guess is that it wants more stuff around it. Doesn't have to be LEGO
bricks - maybe a HDR light probe mapped to the sky might already do the
trick.

In my scene, the camera is far enough "inside" the scene that the
various elements mutually serve as environment. In your scene, the
camera is way outside the building, and there's nothing besides.

Post a reply to this message