 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>
> Reading the title, I was at first tempted to frantically look for the
> "What to do if..." booklets. :-)
>
> I like the scene but a bit less than the previous one. I think this is
> due to the extremely high reflectivity of the body armour and weapons.
> While I can understand the military reason for that (blind your enemies!
> or make yourself 'invisible' like skyscrapers with reflective curtain
> walls) this is a bit counter-productive here, especially the army in the
> background. Maybe do something about the atmosphere which tends to blur
> all colours a bit too much.
>
> --
> Thomas
>
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> I don't agree. I think it is a perfect representation of that style. The
> liking of art deco shows. :-)
> I normally like crisp images but I think the atmosphere really adds
> atmosphere.
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Indeed! I agree that such an obvious and high reflectivity on the armors is a
> waste. especially on such an otherwise cool picture !
>
> If time was your issue, actually, even just specular would give better results
> here. It has been the problem for so many pov pictures in the newsgroups and
> forums historically, but now that there are:
> *blurry reflections
> *albedo settings everywhere to conserve energy,
> *many shading models
> *... so many unbiased raytracers everywhere outside pov
>
> Mere "raytraced reflections" simply should no longer be considered a good
> selling point for POV and used cautiously
>
> Maybe we actually have bad defaults, and Fresnel, with conserve energy should be
> on!
Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback. As I said, I went right back to basics
with everything.
And it isn't that time is an issue - though it does result in hair loss when a
24 hour render reveals itself to be a complete mess - I just feel there must be
a better way to get good results without ramping everything up to the max.
I must confess that I haven't played with albedo too much, but blurred
reflections? I thought that was Uberpov? Or is there a cunning technique for
bulk standard pov?
Cheers
Simon.
PS. Thomas, that is exactly the idea. High reflectivity to confuse the enemy. I
shall tinker. This was only a first draft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I must confess that I haven't played with albedo too much, but blurred
> reflections? I thought that was Uberpov? Or is there a cunning technique for
> bulk standard pov?
>
> Cheers
>
> Simon.
Blured reflections have been there for a long time... but not as a
regular feature.
You can get it using micro-normals. Normals scalled very small. Need
good antialiasing to look nice.
You also can use averaged normals. Many large scale normals randomly
shifted averaged together. You need to average whole textures to have it
work. Make for long render times. Will dramaticaly increase render times
when blured reflection reflect another blured reflection.
With averaged normals, you'll make an object that is normally visible,
but invisible in reflection (no_reflection) that use averaged normals,
and a second one with no_image no_shadow using ordinary reflection or
micro-normals.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.05.2017 um 13:12 schrieb Simon J. Cambridge:
> I must confess that I haven't played with albedo too much, but blurred
> reflections? I thought that was Uberpov? Or is there a cunning technique for
> bulk standard pov?
There is a cunning technique for everything in standard pov ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-05-19 04:49 AM (-4), Mr wrote:
> Maybe we actually have bad defaults, and Fresnel, with conserve energy should be
> on!
There is no maybe; POV-Ray does have bad defaults. But changing them
would break older scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-05-19 07:12 AM (-4), Simon J. Cambridge wrote:
> I must confess that I haven't played with albedo too much, but blurred
> reflections? I thought that was Uberpov? Or is there a cunning technique for
> bulk standard pov?
The cunning technique in question:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:Language_Questions_and_Tips#Topic_13
The Object Collection module RC3Metal implements this in a way that
doesn't tie up your computer for the next two months, although it
doesn't seem to work well with photons:
http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index2.php?objectName=RC3Metal&contributorTag=Cousin%20Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2017-05-19 07:12 AM (-4), Simon J. Cambridge wrote:
> > I must confess that I haven't played with albedo too much, but blurred
> > reflections? I thought that was Uberpov? Or is there a cunning technique for
> > bulk standard pov?
>
> The cunning technique in question:
>
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Knowledgebase:Language_Questions_and_Tips#Topic_13
>
> The Object Collection module RC3Metal implements this in a way that
> doesn't tie up your computer for the next two months, although it
> doesn't seem to work well with photons:
>
>
http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index2.php?objectName=RC3Metal&contributorTag=Cousin%20Ricky
I am way ahead of you. After asking the question I then remembered seeing
something on 'brushed aluminium' from way back when. I went looking and found
RC3Metal and the wonders of averaged textures. I shall play.
Just to add that I have been investigating a little further with the image, but
still find myself liking the version I did with full on reflection! It's bold!
It's heroic! It's deco!
Once again, thanks for all the suggestions,
Simon.
PS. Too many degrees of freedom, and so little time...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon J. Cambridge" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> After asking the question I then remembered seeing
> something on 'brushed aluminium' from way back when. I went looking and found
> RC3Metal and the wonders of averaged textures. I shall play.
>
> Just to add that I have been investigating a little further with the image, but
> still find myself liking the version I did with full on reflection! It's bold!
> It's heroic! It's deco!
Said it before and I'll say it again, there's something about the clarity and
perfection of these ray traced images I will always like. Of course, most people
would agree it isn't realistic that way unless dirt and scratches are added. I
admit I can't resist wanting that realism myself. Just not written in stone that
things must be one way or the other, unless you yourself or someone else needs
it to be.
That aside, I was thinking the air looks too thick. Then I realized why I
thought so, reminds me of a heavy rain. And if you're not wanting to go through
the trouble of including droplets on the armor and raindrops falling in the
nearby air I guess it could be thought of as a smoky battlefield. But that's
just my view.
:)
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-05-20 01:34 AM (-4), omniverse wrote:
> That aside, I was thinking the air looks too thick. Then I realized why I
> thought so, reminds me of a heavy rain. And if you're not wanting to go through
> the trouble of including droplets on the armor and raindrops falling in the
> nearby air I guess it could be thought of as a smoky battlefield. But that's
> just my view.
Have you seen Gilles Tran's "The Wet Bird" in the HOF? It's totally
convincing, with no actually raindrops.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I really like that spaceship design. And the vibrant colors of the two soldiers
are really nice, and a good color contrast.
I would suggest bringing the background line of soldiers somewhat closer to
camera; I actually didn't notice what they were until I looked at the image
several times.
My opinion about the amount (and the color) of the background haze is that it's
excellent-- it clearly defines the two main characters, who are the real focus
of the image.
A small nit-pick: The ends of the white vertical 'light-sabre' detract from its
look-- it appears to be a store-bought fluorescent light tube ;-P The ends are
black(?). Maybe a different color, or a different design there, would look
better. In my humble opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.05.2017 um 17:09 schrieb Kenneth:
> A small nit-pick: The ends of the white vertical 'light-sabre' detract from its
> look-- it appears to be a store-bought fluorescent light tube ;-P The ends are
> black(?). Maybe a different color, or a different design there, would look
> better. In my humble opinion.
My interpretation is that this IS some flourescent-light-tube-ish thing.
Some ceremonial gizmo, rather than effective weaponry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
