My first reasonably successful CSG scene.
The table is a good reproduction of one that I carved many years ago. The
carving did take longer than working out this code.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'thepill1.jpg' (419 KB)

Preview of image 'thepill1.jpg'

Am 13.04.2013 17:02, schrieb Bernard:
> My first reasonably successful CSG scene.
> The table is a good reproduction of one that I carved many years ago. The
> carving did take longer than working out this code.

Yeah, real life would be a lot easier if it had macros and loops :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 13-4-2013 17:02, Bernard wrote:
> My first reasonably successful CSG scene.
> The table is a good reproduction of one that I carved many years ago. The
> carving did take longer than working out this code.
>

Compared with my own 'first', this is indeed good looking. My only 
comment would be about the wood texture. On the vertical part between 
the legs, I would rotate the texture by 90 degrees. The normals seem a 
bit too strong imho.

Nice carving and well done as code too.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> Compared with my own 'first', this is indeed good looking. My only
> comment would be about the wood texture. On the vertical part between
> the legs, I would rotate the texture by 90 degrees. The normals seem a
> bit too strong imho.
>
Yes, I didn't notice that was the wrong way round. I will correct it.
I took the wood from "woods.inc" but found the colours too dark and red, so
changed them. The result is a good match to my clear-varnished oak tables.

Post a reply to this message

Nice work! I don't remember my own first 'reasonably good' CSG scene, but it
certainly wasn't as well-done as this.

That Rubik's Cube is quite funny--only one little cube to go, but...no luck. ;-)

My own 2-cent's worth: Make the lights into area_lights, to add a bit more
realism.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
 Make the lights into area_lights, to add a bit more
> realism.
 I am struggling with the lighting. Will keep your comment in mind.

Just before I move on to my next, here is a close-up. It occurs to me that there
is no point in modelling more detail than can be seen at the intended field of
view - if, of course, there is an intended field.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'thepill3.jpg' (320 KB)

Preview of image 'thepill3.jpg'

On 15-4-2013 12:00, Bernard wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>   Make the lights into area_lights, to add a bit more
>> realism.
>   I am struggling with the lighting. Will keep your comment in mind.
>
> Just before I move on to my next, here is a close-up. It occurs to me that there
> is no point in modelling more detail than can be seen at the intended field of
> view - if, of course, there is an intended field.
>
And this is of great detail indeed. Good work on the container!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bernard" <ber### [at] flyonahookmeuk> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>  Make the lights into area_lights, to add a bit more
> > realism.
>  I am struggling with the lighting. Will keep your comment in mind.
>
> Just before I move on to my next, here is a close-up. It occurs to me that there
> is no point in modelling more detail than can be seen at the intended field of
> view - if, of course, there is an intended field.

Great modelling for your first proper CSG image especially on the table.

For lighting I find area lights, choosing the correct colour for the light,
adding light_fading settings and of course radiosity settings are vital when
aiming for realism.

Also, the thing that I find makes a very big difference to the quality of an
image is abandoning antialiasing and adding focal blur settings on the camera,
if the scene does not require blur just set the aperture to a very small value.

I usually use something like below in my camera section then adjust the variable
from 0-10 to go from test renders to high quality final renders.

#declare useFocalBlur = 10; //0=off 1=low quality 10=high quality   50%

camera {
  location  <0.65 , 2.5 ,-4.0>
  look_at   <0.85, 2.1  0>
  right     x*image_width/image_height
#if(useFocalBlur)
  aperture 0.001
  blur_samples 10*useFocalBlur
  focal_point <1.0,2.5,0.4>
  confidence 0.9+(useFocalBlur*0.0085)
  variance 1/(2000*useFocalBlur)
#end
}

Only downside is focal blur is a lot slower than AA but IMO well worth the wait.

After that, the best advice ever given to me (really should remember who it was
but it was a comment on an early IRTC entry) is to start to think about the
lifetime of the object you are modelling, if it is not a new object it would
have knocks, dents, chips etc and adding dirt to places/parts that are more
likely to be dirty etc..

Sean

Post a reply to this message

"s.day" wrote:

> I usually use something like below in my camera section then adjust the variable
> from 0-10 to go from test renders to high quality final renders.

Thank you for this focal blur settings example. Hopefully I can tweak it a bit
to cut down on animation frame rendering time without too much loss of quality.

Post a reply to this message

> "Bernard" <ber### [at] flyonahookmeuk> wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>   Make the lights into area_lights, to add a bit more
>>> realism.
>>   I am struggling with the lighting. Will keep your comment in mind.
>>
>> Just before I move on to my next, here is a close-up. It occurs to me that there
>> is no point in modelling more detail than can be seen at the intended field of
>> view - if, of course, there is an intended field.
>
> Great modelling for your first proper CSG image especially on the table.
>
> For lighting I find area lights, choosing the correct colour for the light,
> adding light_fading settings and of course radiosity settings are vital when
> aiming for realism.
>
> Also, the thing that I find makes a very big difference to the quality of an
> image is abandoning antialiasing and adding focal blur settings on the camera,
> if the scene does not require blur just set the aperture to a very small value.
>
> I usually use something like below in my camera section then adjust the variable
> from 0-10 to go from test renders to high quality final renders.
>
> #declare useFocalBlur = 10; //0=off 1=low quality 10=high quality   50%
>
> camera {
>    location  <0.65 , 2.5 ,-4.0>
>    look_at   <0.85, 2.1  0>
>    right     x*image_width/image_height
> #if(useFocalBlur)
>    aperture 0.001
>    blur_samples 10*useFocalBlur
>    focal_point <1.0,2.5,0.4>
>    confidence 0.9+(useFocalBlur*0.0085)
>    variance 1/(2000*useFocalBlur)
> #end
> }
>
> Only downside is focal blur is a lot slower than AA but IMO well worth the wait.
>
> After that, the best advice ever given to me (really should remember who it was
> but it was a comment on an early IRTC entry) is to start to think about the
> lifetime of the object you are modelling, if it is not a new object it would
> have knocks, dents, chips etc and adding dirt to places/parts that are more
> likely to be dirty etc..
>
> Sean
>

As of version 3.7, you can use both aa and focal blur. In version 3.6 
and earlier, aa was automaticaly disabled when using focal blur.
The main advantage of using focal blus as a substitute for aa it that 
you can catch sub-pixels details and very narow objects that can 
otherwise get missed.
Using version 3.7, focal blur is also faster.

When using area_light, you should always use adaptive. It makes things 
MUCH faster.
Use adaptive 0 for test renders.
Only if needed, go for adaptive 1 or 2 for the final renders.
Here are area_light parameters that tend to work well for me:

area_light x z 17 17 adaptive 0 circular orient

A 1 by 1 light using a 17 by 17 points aray of sub-lights that orient 
itself as neded. Good for a light bulb or other mostly spherical light 
sources located inside the scene as oposed to lights situated far away 
like the Sun. With adaptive, this will render faster than the "default" 
4 by 4 aray with jitter and without adaptive, especialy when using 
antialiasing or focal blur.


Alain

Post a reply to this message