clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
you can do before I call 911.
I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.

I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
planned.

any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
a greeting
B. Gymene

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'finalrender.png' (869 KB)

Preview of image 'finalrender.png'

and the photoshopped one

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'editedrender.png' (1026 KB)

Preview of image 'editedrender.png'

"B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
> code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
> entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
> you can do before I call 911.
> I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
> adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
> comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
> scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
> objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
> final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
> have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
> to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
> I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.
>
> I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
> deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
> planned.
>
> any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
> a greeting
> B. Gymene

beautiful spheres.

Post a reply to this message

"B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> and the photoshopped one

I have just noticed that the edited version almost completely eliminates the
reflection of the spheres. And this makes me think that when you want a
realistic version of a scene you're actually asking for a retouched version of
reality, just as advertising photography has taught us.

Post a reply to this message

Source posted on http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2017 13:24, B. Gimeno wrote:
> "B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> and the photoshopped one
> 
> I have just noticed that the edited version almost completely eliminates the
> reflection of the spheres. And this makes me think that when you want a
> realistic version of a scene you're actually asking for a retouched version of
> reality, just as advertising photography has taught us.
> 

That is something that PovRay has taught me. Reality is not all it's 
cracked up to be. The mind's eye adds to what the physical eye sees.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.12.2017 um 14:24 schrieb B. Gimeno:
> "B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> and the photoshopped one
> 
> I have just noticed that the edited version almost completely eliminates the
> reflection of the spheres. And this makes me think that when you want a
> realistic version of a scene you're actually asking for a retouched version of
> reality, just as advertising photography has taught us.

Not me. I'm going for the unedited version.

Maybe it's a matter of having a calibrated display. Maybe it's personal
taste.

Post a reply to this message

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
> code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
> entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
> you can do before I call 911.
> I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
> adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
> comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
> scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
> objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
> final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
> have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
> to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
> I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.
> 
> I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
> deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
> planned.
> 
> any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
> a greeting
> B. Gymene
> 

Nice image. I greatly prefer this one over the shopped one.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-12-2017 17:04, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 14:24 schrieb B. Gimeno:
>> "B. Gimeno" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> and the photoshopped one
>>
>> I have just noticed that the edited version almost completely eliminates the
>> reflection of the spheres. And this makes me think that when you want a
>> realistic version of a scene you're actually asking for a retouched version of
>> reality, just as advertising photography has taught us.
> 
> Not me. I'm going for the unedited version.
> 
> Maybe it's a matter of having a calibrated display. Maybe it's personal
> taste.
> 

A fully agree with Christoph.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

B. Gimeno wrote on 01/12/2017 10:34:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the advice, I have been experimenting and forcing the
> code to optimize results with high parameters of radiosity and blurring. I'm not
> entirely happy, but the smoke coming out of the processor tells me this is all
> you can do before I call 911.
> I leave two images of the final result. One of them with levels and curves
> adjusted with photoshop, which for my taste improves the result remarkably and
> comes closer to what I would like it to look like. The scene was designed as a
> scenario to test a rewrite of an old macro of mine to generate pseudo-toroidal
> objects with many, (too many) parameters. The tests soon got out of hand and the
> final finishing adjustments took control of the scene before I realized it. I
> have used another simple macro that I also wrote to generate something similar
> to spheres instead of the simple balls of origin. This one has no name, and soon
> I will publish the code of the whole scene for your delight.
> 
> I've been testing subsurface too. I got strange artifacts and ended up
> deactivating it because I thought it would not improve the scene as it was
> planned.
> 
> any other suggestion, criticism or comment is always welcome,
> a greeting
> B. Gymene
> 
This one is really nice.
Paolo

Post a reply to this message