CShake <cshake+pov### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> That's really what it boils down to, what's the value of your time? I
> would posit that given enough experience and time a good artist could
> get an image from povray that would look as if not more realistic than
> one from vray, but it might take quite a while.

Thanks for the answers. To make what I mean more clear by differences I include
the path to my gallery
http://www.optimadekor.com/galeri/mutfak_program_optima.htm

the first 4 pics are done with radiosity values like
#declare rad_quality= 1;
#declare rad_bounces=   2;
#declare rad_brightness= 0.8;
global_settings {adc_bailout 0.003922
assumed_gamma 1.0
irid_wavelength <0.247059,0.176471,0.137255>
max_trace_level 10
radiosity {
pretrace_start 0.05
pretrace_end 0.005
count rad_quality*rad_quality
nearest_count 10+rad_quality
error_bound 0.5/rad_quality
recursion_limit rad_bounces
brightness rad_brightness}}

and just one light
light_source{
0, rgb 3
area_light 20*x,20*z,4,4 jitter adaptive 1 orient circular
fade_distance 100
fade_power 2
translate <-198.2784,250,405.9303>}

the remaining pics after first 4 dont use radiosity. SDL files for all pics
produced automatically by C# code.

This is the best I got from Povray, Of course POV is capable of doing better.
So, as C Shake states, is it my lack of good textures, lack of better radiosity
or lighting settings? Or am I just trying to play catchup with vray hopelessly?
the quality of some POV images I've seen so far are second to none. So I know
there is hope.

thank you for everything :D
optima

To C Shake
> one from vray, but it might take quite a while.
Whay do you mean by quite a while?
to get the good textures
to gain the experience
to render the image

Post a reply to this message