|
 |
Am 12/6/2017 um 23:04 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
> I hardly ever comment here anymore, but this image made me say "WOW"
> aloud :)
>
Hey, nice to hear from another old time pover again.
> As a photographer, this picture looks under exposed, so brightening the
> lights will do wonders, imho.
So true. Usually I use always HDR image format output to make it
possible to adjust exposure after rendering. But for some stupid mistake
this final render used just 8bit output, so no way to adjust brightness
without loosing details.
Thanks for your input - much appreciated.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Am 12/9/2017 um 1:36 schrieb Kenneth:
> That is really stunning; to me it looks 'real'. I'm a long-time fan of good
> cinematography (especially from the 'old' Hollywood days), and this looks great,
> as does the girl.
>
As is CG ;)
> Cinematography as an art-form is really about illusion-- making a scene look
> 'more real than real', to create a mood (and to be visually beautifl, of
> course.) Sadly, that's lacking in many modern TV shows and movies. My personal
> favorite practicioner (now deceased, I think) is Freddie Young, BSC-- Doctor
> Zhivago, Lawerence Of Arabia, and so many other beautiful films.
>
I do not think the ratio between good and bad cinematography has changed
from past to present. Its just that all the bad ones from the past are
forgotten, only the good ones stay in mind. And Freddie Young is among
my favorites too.
Just an example for contemporary brilliant cinematography even just
within a TV show would be Fargo season one and two. Minnesota never
looked that cold, frosty and empty (but still with a sparkle of hope)
before.
> I agree with another comment here-- I think the girl needs a backlight or 'hair
> light', from the upper left, just to add a little sheen to separate her hair
> from the background.
>
> The thing that seems to be missing from most CGI human-model textures is subtle
> skin blemishes, and tiny skin wrinkles. We all have them (even with the best
> movie-style makeup applied.) I'm thinking that the girl needs just a hint of
> 'crow's feet' wrinkling at the corners of her eyes, as an example.
>
> I've never attempted making a realistic human face, so I have no idea of the
> amount of work that goes into it, or of all the subtle details that are
> required. You're light-years ahead of me!
>
Thank you for the input - I always love to hear what for others springs
to mind. As mentioned elsewhere, at some point, I see flaws *everywhere*
in my images.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] povplace com> wrote:
> I hardly ever comment here anymore, but this image made me say "WOW"
> aloud :)
>
> Without a doubt the most realistic and believable human model I've ever
> seen rendered with POV-Ray!
>
Couldn't agree more. Wonderful image.
I am presuming the soft focus was added afterwards? If not, how do you do soft
focus in pov-ray? (I am not smearing glycerine on my jpegs!)
Simon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
