 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's been a while since I've used POV, but I'm confortable
enough so I don't need hand-holding answers and I can look
things up in the docs when pointed in the right direction.
I'm rendering a Gazebo, and I want it to be in bright Dallas
sunshine. So, one light source in the right spot, and yow,
the contrast is too high. The shadows are too dark. Yea,
it really does look like that, but the eye adjusts as you
look around. I tried turning up the ambient light setting
but it doesn't look good. I threw in a fill-light with
"shadowless" and it does help.
But any more expert suggestions? Real light is the bright
sun plus a general glow from the whole sky. A huge area
light would be inefficient. The "ambient" light is much
less under the roof than outside, but there's no direct way
to say that that I recall.
--John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wtb### [at] sneakemail com news:4042abf5@news.povray.org
> I'm rendering a Gazebo,
What is an Gazebo?
> and I want it to be in bright Dallas
> sunshine. So, one light source in the right spot, and yow,
> the contrast is too high. The shadows are too dark. Yea,
> it really does look like that, but the eye adjusts as you
> look around. I tried turning up the ambient light setting
> but it doesn't look good. I threw in a fill-light with
> "shadowless" and it does help.
You should use radiosity,
for a quick test just add at begin of .pov scene:
global_settings{radiosity{}}
and probably You also would like to add:
default{finish{ambient 0}}
then all (most) object would be lighten not only by light_sources, by also
by sorounding objects that reflect (diffuse) light.
Light will be "produced" by ambient objects (including sky_sphere) and
objects with i.e. finish{ambient 1}
You also my try HDRI instead sky_sphere (You need ML POV patch instead of
Pov 3.6 for it).
In addition You might want to use area_light.
For radiosity You might want to use higher quality settings in final
render.
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I recommend Jaime Vives Piqueres' lighting system, which supports real world
lighting values and colours:
http://www.ignorancia.org/t_lightsys.php
The bit I use the most is his Kelvin() macro, where you pass in a colour
temperature and it gives you rgb values. The sun has a colour of around
Kelvin(5500).
If you want to look at my best sunny lighting setup, you can download the source
for my "grassy" image:
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com/gallery/showimage.php?name=finished/grassy
It has a "dome" of 8 blue lights with one strong directional one.
Cheers
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"John M. Dlugosz" <wtb### [at] sneakemailcom> wrote in message
news:4042abf5@news.povray.org...
> It's been a while since I've used POV, but I'm confortable
> enough so I don't need hand-holding answers and I can look
> things up in the docs when pointed in the right direction.
>
> I'm rendering a Gazebo, and I want it to be in bright Dallas
> sunshine. So, one light source in the right spot, and yow,
> the contrast is too high. The shadows are too dark. Yea,
> it really does look like that, but the eye adjusts as you
> look around. I tried turning up the ambient light setting
> but it doesn't look good. I threw in a fill-light with
> "shadowless" and it does help.
>
> But any more expert suggestions? Real light is the bright
> sun plus a general glow from the whole sky. A huge area
> light would be inefficient. The "ambient" light is much
> less under the roof than outside, but there's no direct way
> to say that that I recall.
>
> --John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> It's been a while since I've used POV, but I'm confortable enough so I
> don't need hand-holding answers and I can look things up in the docs
> when pointed in the right direction.
>
> I'm rendering a Gazebo, and I want it to be in bright Dallas sunshine.
> So, one light source in the right spot, and yow, the contrast is too
> high. The shadows are too dark. Yea, it really does look like that,
> but the eye adjusts as you look around. I tried turning up the ambient
> light setting but it doesn't look good. I threw in a fill-light with
> "shadowless" and it does help.
>
> But any more expert suggestions? Real light is the bright sun plus a
> general glow from the whole sky. A huge area light would be
> inefficient. The "ambient" light is much less under the roof than
> outside, but there's no direct way to say that that I recall.
>
> --John
I generally create the simplest of light arrays, two 'suns', one that
will cast shadows and one thats shadowless. By adjusting the light
color of each, you can get the degree of contrast you desire. Adding
two or three 'fill' lights in addition will give you even better
control. I try to stay away from ambient light altogether, except for
testing geometry.
rd
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> What is an Gazebo?
"A freestanding, roofed, usually open-sided structure
providing a shady resting place."
> You should use radiosity,
> Light will be "produced" by ambient objects (including sky_sphere) and
> objects with i.e. finish{ambient 1}
I'll have to read up on that again. When it was first
available, it was picky to use and =way= too slow!
> You also my try HDRI instead sky_sphere (You need ML POV patch instead of
> Pov 3.6 for it).
What is HDRI?
> In addition You might want to use area_light.
As I recall, the area light affects the apparence of the
shadow but =not= the illumination shading.
Thanks,
--John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> http://www.ignorancia.org/t_lightsys.php
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com/gallery/showimage.php?name=finished/grassy
Many thanks for both tips.
Beautiful image, BTW.
--John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Richard Dybiec wrote:
> I generally create the simplest of light arrays, two 'suns', one that
> will cast shadows and one thats shadowless. By adjusting the light
> color of each, you can get the degree of contrast you desire.
Both in the same place? I see; that gives you lighter shadows.
> Adding
> two or three 'fill' lights in addition will give you even better
> control. I try to stay away from ambient light altogether, except for
> testing geometry.
I read a pretty good book about digital lighting, and
basically you light it the way you would in photography.
But dozens of lights slows things down and are hard to
position just right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4043dbc4$1@news.povray.org>,
"John M. Dlugosz" <wtb### [at] sneakemailcom> wrote:
> Both in the same place? I see; that gives you lighter shadows.
Hmm. I always set the default texture to have an ambient of 0 and
diffuse of 1. I then usually put a dim white shadowless fill light at
the camera location...edges still get shaded, so it doesn't flatten the
scene out like ambient light. Nice for test renders: it doesn't hide the
geometry of an object, and illuminates everything that's visible.
Depending on the scene, I'll disable it or dim it further, and use
radiosity for the final render.
In this case, you are using the second light to simulate scattered
sky-light. Radiosity will do an actual optical simulation of this, but a
shadowless blueish light in the general area of the greatest amount of
visible sky can give similar results. A slightly yellowish light and one
or more blue-tinted lights at separate positions can give the scene a
lot more depth, but a blue sky and radiosity will do a better job.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4043da15$1@news.povray.org>,
"John M. Dlugosz" <wtb### [at] sneakemailcom> wrote:
> Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> > What is an Gazebo?
>
> "A freestanding, roofed, usually open-sided structure
> providing a shady resting place."
An ideal radiosity scene.
> > You should use radiosity,
> > Light will be "produced" by ambient objects (including sky_sphere) and
> > objects with i.e. finish{ambient 1}
>
> I'll have to read up on that again. When it was first
> available, it was picky to use and =way= too slow!
Try it again. Don't forget to look at the rad_def.inc include file (part
of the standard distribution). It's been greatly improved in quality and
speed since the earliest versions.
> > You also my try HDRI instead sky_sphere (You need ML POV patch instead of
> > Pov 3.6 for it).
>
> What is HDRI?
High Dynamic Range Image. An image format that can store values outside
of a 0-100% range. It doesn't necessarily give more realistic results in
POV because color values used internally are unclipped anyway, but it
allows you to use precalculated or real-world samples for distant
surroundings.
> > In addition You might want to use area_light.
>
> As I recall, the area light affects the apparence of the
> shadow but =not= the illumination shading.
Correct. However, the soft shadow can sometimes give an appearance
similar to actual radiosity.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> It's been a while since I've used POV, but I'm confortable enough so I
> don't need hand-holding answers and I can look things up in the docs
> when pointed in the right direction.
>
> I'm rendering a Gazebo, and I want it to be in bright Dallas sunshine.
> So, one light source in the right spot, and yow, the contrast is too
> high. The shadows are too dark. Yea, it really does look like that,
> but the eye adjusts as you look around.
One thing you might want to keep in mind is that a monitor will probably
have MUCH too small a contrast range to display this scene accurately..
so, rather than trying to make it look physically real, you should
settle for making it look "good". You might consider using photographs
of similar real-world environments for reference.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
