 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:16:42 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote:
> You're reminding me of how complex and engaging an apparently simple
> still life can be.
Thanks. As I've said i love this sort of thing.
I had to do this render on another computer and it appears really dark on
my normal PC. I hate posting multiple images but I'd like to check this
out so I've posted a render from my normal PC as it was saved at the same
compression ratio and turned out 10kb more it does suggest a difference.
Please let me know if you can see anything different about this one.
--
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'glasses5.jpg' (42 KB)
Preview of image 'glasses5.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's considerably brighter. Probably closer to where you'd want it to
be. BTW the sliver of light in the background is not coming off as
totally believable. I think maybe it is too cool compared to the warm
atmosphere. It tends to look like a solid object.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:51:13 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> It's considerably brighter. Probably closer to where you'd want it to
> be.
Yes that's more like it.
> BTW the sliver of light in the background is not coming off as totally
> believable. I think maybe it is too cool compared to the warm
> atmosphere. It tends to look like a solid object.
I assume you mean the triangle of light, the problem is I want to make the
edges fuzzy in the same way falloff is used in spotlight and can't see a
way to do that with a point light they're way to sharp without focal_blur
. I'll try altering the media type and putting a different texture on the
background wall it may soften the darkness a bit and indicate that
something else is there. It's all good practice for my stone corridor :)
--
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IT" by Stephen King...the *real* cause of the dotcom bubble burst...
Oh wait, that's "it", not an acronym.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
news:opr1703fd6p4ukzs@news.povray.org...
>
> I had to do this render on another computer and it appears really
dark on
> my normal PC. I hate posting multiple images but I'd like to check
[snip]
> Please let me know if you can see anything different about this one.
The 22 Jan one is too dark for my liking. Your last looks about right
for me. Nice still life btw. I had similar problems with a crt on my
old box (gamma 2.2) and an LCD (gamma around 1.3) on my new one -
identical script gave different images. Seems its a gamma problem -
different curves.
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:43:05 -0000, Alf Peake
<alf### [at] peake42freeservecouk> wrote:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
> news:opr1703fd6p4ukzs@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I had to do this render on another computer and it appears really
> dark on
>> my normal PC. I hate posting multiple images but I'd like to check
> [snip]
>> Please let me know if you can see anything different about this one.
>
> The 22 Jan one is too dark for my liking. Your last looks about right
> for me. Nice still life btw. I had similar problems with a crt on my
> old box (gamma 2.2) and an LCD (gamma around 1.3) on my new one -
> identical script gave different images. Seems its a gamma problem -
> different curves.
Thanks a little more tweaking perhaps to satisfy myself and then I'll move
to the next project.
I tend to output to PNG so of course get that bloody gamma correction
built-in; fine when I just view on my computer but causes problems on
others I'll try outputting anything I want to post to default and see what
happens.
--
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:26:47 -0000, Phil Cook
<phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote:
>OK here goes critique away <gulp>
Just a suggestion: http://tinyurl.com/25dlf :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:28:43 +0200, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:26:47 -0000, Phil Cook
> <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote:
>
>> OK here goes critique away <gulp>
>
> Just a suggestion: http://tinyurl.com/25dlf :)
LOL. No Way; one with no dustcover is fine by me :)
OK now you've got me wondering how to do it <swears>
--
Phil
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
