Beautiful job, I can't believe you were able to reconstruct the room 
dimensions.  Marvelous!

Ive wrote:

> ...his painting, the canvas is not even dry and the artist and his models
> went out for dinner.
> 
> Well, but the raytraced reproduction is far away from being finished.
> This is just the first test with HQ radiosity settings.
> 
> 
> global_settings {
>   assumed_gamma 1.0
>   max_trace_level 16
>   radiosity {
>      count 1600
>      error_bound 0.15
>      recursion_level 4
>      ...
>     [everything else is the same as the indoor HQ settings from rad_def.inc]
> 
> 
> The problems are:
> 
> Some ugly bright spots on the walls. Especially near the virginals and
> windows. They appear ONLY when layerd textures are used. Indeed
> the top layer uses an agate pigment and the shape of these spots is similar
> to that pattern but in fact due to the pattern, these parts should appear
> a little bit darker than the surrounding.
> 
> When using some glass material for the windows (indeed for this render
> there is no glass used) even a very simple glass, the wall at the window side
> becomes completely black. To be more exact, the part of the wall facing
> the room.
> 
> The image maps (used for the paintings) become sudden black at a certain
> level of darkness. So they look very ugly and be sure, the original maps I
> have used are smooth.
> 
> All above mentioned does not appear with lower quality settings for radiosity
> (e.g count 400, error_bound 0.8) and also not when using normal light sources.
> 
> Have I missed something?
> Or are these known limitations for the way radiosity is done by POV?
> Or is there something goin' wrong with the radiosity samples calculated
> by POV (in other words: are there BUGS)?
> 
> Has anybody of the more experienced radiosity users any hints, explanations
> or whatever?  I'm really stuck and with HQ radiosity the image needs days
> to render so it's no fun to work with trial and error.
> 
> 
> And here is something completely different but quite interesting.
> For this image you are standing close to the rear wall behind the place Vermeer
> was sitting, so you can see the easel. The dimension for the room was reconstructed
> by what can be seen in the mirror. (In the original painting you see the edge of the
> table, so you can calculate the angle the mirror is hanging on the wall and
> you can also see the part where the rear wall meets the floor and now you can
> calculate the length of the room.)  So we know the length of the wall at the window
> side and we see that there is exactly room for a third window of the same size as
> already seen in the painting. Also I assume that Vermeer would not have placed
> his easel in the darkest place of the room and there it would be if there is not a
third
> window.
> BUT the lighting as seen in the painting (especially on the rug covering the table)
> looks more like there is NOT a  third window. (Or lets say the window shades
> are closed.)  In the image I have attached there is a third window but I  have also
> done a radiosity simulation without the third window and the lighting is much closer
> to what can be seen in the painting.
> What does this mean? Has Vermeer closed the window shades because he preferred
> this kind of lighting for the room even if this means his canvas was lit very poor?
> Or did he close the window shades, looked at the room, opened them to do some
> brush strokes, closed them again...
> 
> -Ive
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message