 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hot cool, man! :D
OTOH, there's polygon edges artifacting with shadows there... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> OTOH, there's polygon edges artifacting with shadows there... :P
See? It's all just meshes ;)
Next time I'd better do some mesh subdividing in PoseRay before doing such
close-ups... then again, the original scene doesnn't need so much detail - but
that one would surely have been unfit for public viewing :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I assume the meshes are not double-illuminated? Could you try
re-rendering with the meshes double-illuminated? Since they are closed
meshes it won't make any difference with respect to the lighting, but it
might get rid of those edge artifacts on the elbow.
(Although, now that I think about it, I don't know if
double-illumination will affect radiosity even for closed meshes...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> - but
> that one would surely have been unfit for public viewing :P
You kidding? The public pays good money to view that sort of mesh2 composition
(although they usually hide the credit card itemization from the wife).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Um... well... ahem... this is... uh... it's *not* what it looks like... I mean,
> I can explain *everything*... >_<
>
The image looks innocent enough--they're probably just discussing their tax
returns. :-P (That's what they tell the kids, anyway.)
Nice one! I really like the hair strands in the man's arm texture.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Um... well... ahem... this is... uh... it's *not* what it looks like... I mean,
> I can explain *everything*... >_<
>
> Honestly, this is *really* just a few meshes exported from Poser via PoseRay to
> POV-Ray, and an SDL-generated height field with straightforward bump normals,
> rendered with an area light and radiosity (the new, fast 3.7 code)...
>
> But I really like how the entwined hands (uh, I mean, mesh2 objects) came out,
> and I did want to show off the bed (uh, I mean, height field), the code for
> which I hacked up in just a few minutes... BTW, did you know that there is a
> limit to the complexity of POV functions?
>
>
> (For all American and/or catholic readers: Yes, they're married; I think it's
> actually their honeymoon, so I hope they may be forgiven - they won't do it
> again here in this newsgroup; they promised ;))
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Nice job. One detail that keeps catching my attention is the fingers
seem to overlap a lot. The skin doesn't seem to deform at the
intersection, it just goes through the other one.
Great textures and composition though!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
CShake <cshake+pov### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Nice job. One detail that keeps catching my attention is the fingers
> seem to overlap a lot. The skin doesn't seem to deform at the
> intersection, it just goes through the other one.
I noticed that, too; it doesn't draw much attention in the full scene though :P
Given that I didn't do any magnets work on the hands, I think they look good
enough. Maybe a little less bend on some fingers.
(BTW, does someone know how to use magnets in Poser so that they affect multiple
body parts at once?)
> Great textures and composition though!
Thanks. As for textures, I can only claim to have textured the bed: The others
are basically DAZ stuff (not the default textures though). The only thing I had
to fix was that the textures turned out too bright in POV-Ray (which is probably
a gamma issue; anyway tweaking with "assumed_gamma" helped; so I really guess we
should have a way to specify gamma correction on a per-texture-image basis), and
the woman's lips were a bit pale (but we don't see them in this detail shot of
course).
Fingernails were a major concern: They typically seem to come out too blueish.
Not this time fortunately.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49e3b76855da85cf2dae03a10@news.povray.org...
>
> (BTW, does someone know how to use magnets in Poser so that they affect
> multiple
> body parts at once?)
>
Hm. Except for the possibility to mirror changes from one body half to the
other, I don't see how to do that with magnets in Poser. I am always a bit
wary to use them as I find them somewhat impredictable.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Hm. Except for the possibility to mirror changes from one body half to the
> other, I don't see how to do that with magnets in Poser. I am always a bit
> wary to use them as I find them somewhat impredictable.
The alternative would be to manipulate the surface directly, I guess - but
Poser's interface for "painting" bumps and dents onto surfaces is still a
greater mystery to me than magnets...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49e4845855da85cff06ce2830@news.povray.org...
>
> The alternative would be to manipulate the surface directly, I guess - but
> Poser's interface for "painting" bumps and dents onto surfaces is still a
> greater mystery to me than magnets...
>
The morph tool? yes, indeed. Although I think that for small local changes
that is more appropriate than the magnets. Growing horns on Jame's forehead
is really fun for instance and easy to do. Mirroring the changes afterwards
is the finishing touch. Personally, except for the built-in morphs, I rarely
use the morph tool, and practically never the magnets. However, I must say
that I did not (yet) have the need/incentive to use them. That might
change....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
