 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I can't even begin to imagine how many test renders you had to make, to get to
> this final result. I would probably be at the task for years :-O
not too much test renders - I saved about 50 individual ones - so I made perhaps
3-400 test renders at all - together with with the individual renders for the
ca. 50 objects.
This is my usual number I guess - but this image took more than 7 months to let
me an ok - and I needed some months of them to get rid of a certain (povray)
flaw.
Here I show the basic scene (without ceiling). Combination of strong light and
strong normals cause an effect like double_illuminate - here is a minimal scene
too.
#version 3.7;
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1
radiosity {
pretrace_start 0.08
pretrace_end 0.01
count 120
nearest_count 4
error_bound 0.5
low_error_factor 0.5
recursion_limit 2
gray_threshold 0
minimum_reuse 0.015
brightness 1
adc_bailout 0.005
normal on
}
}
#include "stdinc.inc"
camera {
right x*image_width/image_height
location <10,100,20>
look_at <-27,57,38>
angle 48
}
background {color srgb 1}
light_source {<-800,5000,7500>, color srgb 5.6} // a strong light is essential
union { // an arrow showing direction of
incoming light (from the right and slightly behind)
cylinder {3*y, 15*y, 0.75}
cone {0, 0, 3*y, 1.2}
texture {
pigment {color srgb x}
finish {ambient 0 diffuse 1 specular 0.3 roughness 0.1
reflection 0.15}
}
Point_At_Trans (<-800,5000,7500>)
translate (<-40.8,10,27>+<-56,89,84>)/2
}
//_____________________________________________ scene
#declare T1 =
texture {
pigment {color srgb 0.2}
finish {diffuse 0.6 ambient 0}
normal {granite 5 scale 0.01} // a strong normal is essential
too
}
union {
triangle {0, y, z+y}
triangle {0, z, z+y}
texture {T1}
scale <1,543,514>*0.1
translate <-40.8,0,27>
}
union {
triangle {0, y, z+y}
triangle {0, z, z+y}
texture {T1}
scale <1,543,514>*0.1
translate <-42.8,0,27>
}
#if (0) // if turned off, strange
behavior occurs (like double_illuminate)
box {
<-40.8,0,78>, <-56,89,84>
pigment {color srgb <0,0,1>}
}
#end
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'strange effect.jpg' (246 KB)
Preview of image 'strange effect.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> We are not expecting less from you, Norbert! What strikes me most are
> not so much the objects (which are masterfull btw; some day you will
> have to explain some of those details of metallic decorations) but the
> ambient lighting that pervades the scene and gives it its unity as it
> were. That is something I find difficult to achieve if at all.
>
> --
> Thomas
Thank you Thomas,
if anything is right about the lighting - it's by accident. I just used
double_illuminate for a bright ceiling and recursive_limit 2 - together with a
single light it made a museum-like very diffuse lighting.
But it came with high costs - render time for a halfway decent 8000*4500 pix
render was 5 days and I had to rerender some parts with better radiosity
settings.
A less boring lighting was much more demanding and I gave up on that - here is
the last trial.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'mice_.jpg' (707 KB)
Preview of image 'mice_.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/20/21 11:50 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
...
Another amazing image. I agree with others on the color comp and that
vase. I guess as children you were inside while I was outside working on
the estate grounds :-). Took me a second to recognize the Vermeer - it's
mirrored...
As I suspect, you suspect, given your code comments, what you are seeing
is the normal inversion I was talking some about while fixing the
quilted pattern for povr last fall. Something which happens often enough
when you play with bump sizes above about 0.5. You have only triangles
there - one surface - and when the normal inverts the surfaces turns
inside out(1).
Attached an image. All without the light blocking box. In the top left
your original scene. In the upper right the bump size set at 0.5. In the
lower left a v3.7 render showing the existing v3.7 / v3.8 quilted normal
inverting with a bump size of 5. In the lower right the povr branch's
fixed quilted normal - which does extra work to prevent the
primary/major normal direction from inverting - still with a bump size
of 5.
If you had instead used small boxes with some thickness > the min
intersection depth the shadow test code would likely pick up the
"second" box surface correctly and see the intersection at the first
surface as being in shadow.
(1) - And this touches a POV-Ray secrete with respect to shadows... As
often as not the surface appears to be in shadow because the normal
points away from the light source and so it appears unlit when in fact
POV-Ray considers it lit. The actual shadow detection code usually fails
to correctly pick up the at surface intersection on the shadow test. ;-)
Aside: My guess is that you needed the extreme normals for radiosity to
reasonably light the wall texture? If so, an alternative is to lower the
finish brilliance to something toward 0, so the shading model gives less
than the usual importance to the incidence of the light rays hitting the
wall. This is the purpose of brilliance(2).
(2) - I have in my head there is a brilliance setting in the global
radiosity block with which Christoph was playing in v3.8. I cannot
remember the state of it at the moment. It was, I think, a boolean - if
so, probably as to whether to use the textures finish brilliance setting
if other than 1.0. But..? Not sure what if any implications for
radiosity and finish brilliance with v3.7.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nrmlbmpszinvrt.jpg' (54 KB)
Preview of image 'nrmlbmpszinvrt.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Be it outdoor or indoor, you really know how to get it just right! That's an
impressive image as usual.
I definitely prefer the second version. There is something strange to me around
the ground near the cat in the first one. The image looks 'flat' here in
comparison to other parts, just a feeling, not sure how to explain...
Pascal
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>
> My mother worked as a charwomen since I was nine. After school I had to come to
> remember from that times. Typical was an more or less eclectical accumulation of
> expensive deco objects and valuable materials.
>
> paintings ever made (from right to left Boecklin, Klimt, Daubigny, Gerome and
> Vermeer).
>
> The rug fringe on the right are about 650 sphere sweeps controlled by
> neighboring pigments.
>
> Stay healthy,
> Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 2/20/21 11:50 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Took me a second to recognize the Vermeer - it's mirrored...
Thank you, but the vermeer only seems to be mirrored. It seems so, because it is
a picture in a mirror. To be sure I made a test with an old mirror...
> As I suspect, you suspect, given your code comments, what you are seeing
> is the normal inversion I was talking some about while fixing the
> quilted pattern for povr last fall. Something which happens often enough
> when you play with bump sizes above about 0.5. You have only triangles
> there - one surface - and when the normal inverts the surfaces turns
> inside out(1).
>
> Attached an image. All without the light blocking box. In the top left
> your original scene. In the upper right the bump size set at 0.5. In the
> lower left a v3.7 render showing the existing v3.7 / v3.8 quilted normal
> inverting with a bump size of 5. In the lower right the povr branch's
> fixed quilted normal - which does extra work to prevent the
> primary/major normal direction from inverting - still with a bump size
> of 5.
>
> If you had instead used small boxes with some thickness > the min
> intersection depth the shadow test code would likely pick up the
> "second" box surface correctly and see the intersection at the first
> surface as being in shadow.
>
> (1) - And this touches a POV-Ray secrete with respect to shadows... As
> often as not the surface appears to be in shadow because the normal
> points away from the light source and so it appears unlit when in fact
> POV-Ray considers it lit. The actual shadow detection code usually fails
> to correctly pick up the at surface intersection on the shadow test. ;-)
>
> Aside: My guess is that you needed the extreme normals for radiosity to
> reasonably light the wall texture? If so, an alternative is to lower the
> finish brilliance to something toward 0, so the shading model gives less
> than the usual importance to the incidence of the light rays hitting the
> wall. This is the purpose of brilliance(2).
>
> (2) - I have in my head there is a brilliance setting in the global
> radiosity block with which Christoph was playing in v3.8. I cannot
> remember the state of it at the moment. It was, I think, a boolean - if
> so, probably as to whether to use the textures finish brilliance setting
> if other than 1.0. But..? Not sure what if any implications for
> radiosity and finish brilliance with v3.7.
>
> Bill P.
An excellent tip - I'll test it immediately.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"BayashiPascal" <bai### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Be it outdoor or indoor, you really know how to get it just right! That's an
> impressive image as usual.
>
> I definitely prefer the second version. There is something strange to me around
> the ground near the cat in the first one. The image looks 'flat' here in
> comparison to other parts, just a feeling, not sure how to explain...
>
>
> Pascal
I assume it seems flat because of relatively poor radiosity settings - but a
final render with good settings would need much more than a month of rendertime.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/21/21 7:39 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> On 2/20/21 11:50 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
>
>> Took me a second to recognize the Vermeer - it's mirrored...
>
> Thank you, but the vermeer only seems to be mirrored. It seems so, because it is
> a picture in a mirror. To be sure I made a test with an old mirror...
>
Indeed - that's one way to be sure! :-)
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> Wow Norbert, this is such an amazing image!
>
> The lighting and materials are brilliant and the composition so well thought
> out. The harmony of colors is very pleasing and that vase really pops. Those are
> some of my favorite paintings as well, I love how you worked them into the
> scene.
>
> The sphere sweep rug fringes are a great touch! The subtlety of the metallic
> cavities and highlights are wonderful, especially notable in the owl and the
> mirror frame!
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
Thank you very much.
I want to replicate the Boecklin image (Isle of the dead) since 20 years, but I
have to mature more...
In 2003 I was electrified, when I turned around a corner at NY Met to see this
version in a very similar setting - I stood there at least 30 minutes with my
jaws dropped to the floor blocking anybody else - then my wife found me ...
The metallic textures aren't complicated at all - just very low diffuse and
metallic reflections settings (without direct lighting there is no specular or
phong contributions).
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 21/02/2021 om 15:15 schreef Norbert Kern:
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
>> Wow Norbert, this is such an amazing image!
>>
>> The lighting and materials are brilliant and the composition so well thought
>> out. The harmony of colors is very pleasing and that vase really pops. Those are
>> some of my favorite paintings as well, I love how you worked them into the
>> scene.
>>
>> The sphere sweep rug fringes are a great touch! The subtlety of the metallic
>> cavities and highlights are wonderful, especially notable in the owl and the
>> mirror frame!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> I want to replicate the Boecklin image (Isle of the dead) since 20 years, but I
> have to mature more...
> In 2003 I was electrified, when I turned around a corner at NY Met to see this
> version in a very similar setting - I stood there at least 30 minutes with my
> jaws dropped to the floor blocking anybody else - then my wife found me ...
>
> The metallic textures aren't complicated at all - just very low diffuse and
> metallic reflections settings (without direct lighting there is no specular or
> phong contributions).
>
> Norbert
>
Aaaah... Boecklin... I made a couple of starts on that painting over
the last 20 years too. Each time piteously failed in my attempts. ;-)
One day however...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2021 8:56 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> My mother worked as a charwomen since I was nine. After school I had to come to
> remember from that times. Typical was an more or less eclectical accumulation of
> expensive deco objects and valuable materials.
>
> paintings ever made (from right to left Boecklin, Klimt, Daubigny, Gerome and
> Vermeer).
>
> The rug fringe on the right are about 650 sphere sweeps controlled by
> neighboring pigments.
>
> Stay healthy,
> Norbert Kern
>
>
>
Very amazing image!!
I think the light switch is floating above the surface of the wall BTW.
Or the shadow makes it look like it is not contacting the wall.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
