Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> The tree was having some bounding problems, and manual bounding didn't
> seem to having any effect (literally, there was no change). So the
> middle third of the picture was really slow.
> 
> The table directly underneath it was even worse, because (I think) of
> the reflection blur.

In such cases i would do test renders without the tree so i could adjust the
lighting situation and only add it for the final render

> I was going for something like realistic lighting, and with all three of
> the lights on (you can't see them because they're overhead, but there's
> three of them), making the lighting any brighter washed out the color of
> the wooden walls. I suppose I could have increased the light intensity
> to simulate pupil dilation (or longer exposure, whatever), but you know,
> even with those measures, a real-life dimly-lit room still looks dimly-lit.

I don't know the effect in this special case apart from making things even
slower, but it's often worth trying radiosity in indoor scenes ...

> I wonder what "photographic" post-processing, as was discussed on here
> some weeks back, would do to the image.

I had a look at the picture's histogram and saw that it only uses values below
103.  When doing color correction after the render, there are always losses
because of the limited accuracy (8 bit per channel), especially with further
reduced color space like here, and 16 bit pictures are only supported by very
few programs right now.  (That matter was discussed before as you mentioned)

> Try looking at it on a black background, and with the lights turned down
> to match the illumination in the picture.. the difference is really dramatic.

I also tried Photoshop's Auto-Correction (i don't know the exact name in
english) and the result was quite interesting.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message