"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3a9e4625@news.povray.org...
>
> D.J. Brown schrieb in Nachricht <3a9dbbc5$1@news.povray.org>...
> >Have you ever played the game Summoner? When I saw this I thought for
sure
> >you were recreating the inner city. The similarities are startling. Same
> >building style, same colors, same brick and stone patterns, same kind of
> >wells, everything.
> >
>
> No, never - but if it looks like this image it might be worth trying. What
> type of game is it?

It's an RPG for the PC and PlayStation2. Pretty cool, but sometimes it seems
to drag out. But it was good enough to waste several days of my time. ;)

>
> >Nice work.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> >- One of the problems is the distance from the camera to the well and the
> >level of perspective on the well. If the camera were far away, the well
> >would almost appear two-dimensional and it would be acceptable to not
have
> >any focal blur. With the camera this close, though, one would not expect
> >everything to be in focus. Think of the difference between using a zoom
> >lense on a camera and just standing really close with a wide angle lense.
> >This image shares properties of both and the mind's eye doesn't like
> >that.(more on photograph stuff later, though)
> >
>
> Well, it is not suposed to look like a photograph :-) In the fantasy world
> this is made for, there are no cameras yet, so one should go and see for
> oneself.
> OTOH you are right, that it does not look as a "first-person" view either,
> but I don't think that's a matter of focal blur, since I don't see things
> blured some 20 or 30 meters away.

It's kind of like the question, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is
around to hear it, does it make a sound?" When you're not looking at
something, what does it look like? When people look at something, they
generally only look at one small detail. Try looking at one word in this
message, and then trying to read a word three words to the left or right
with your prehipheral - there are few, if any, people that can do this. Too
much detail in an image is unnatural for people. Ever notice that when you
take a 3D game like Quake from an annoyingly low resolution like 320x200 to
a really high resolution like 1280x1024 (and assuming the framerates are the
same), the low resolution oddly looks more "realistic?" The higher
resolution image contains too much information, enough that the mind doesn't
have to make up details and "sees" the mistakes. When someone's mind has to
make up details to fill in the gaps, it accepts those made-up details as
real, and hence, they look real.

Focal blur occurs in human vision, except that the eyes adjust so quickly
that most of the time you don't notice. If you hold your fingers across your
vision up close, then "see" the computer screen through them while still
focusing on the fingers, the screen will be blurry. This test can be taken
to virtuall any "human" scale. This is hard to compensate for with your
goals in mind, as you're trying to convey a wholistic sense of your world.
Maybe create a series of images showing the microcosms of your world, and
large, encompassing images to give a sense of place.

>
> >- Radiosity if FAR overrated. Only use radiosity when you need an
accurate
> >rendering, not when you want the image to look real. Two of the most
> >overlooked features for lights are the falloff and the falloff curve.
These
> >create beautifully smooth radiosity-like affects. If you make several
point
> >lights like this that don't cast shadows, and place them at choice
> >locations, you can create a fast, realistic looking, global illumination
> >solution.
> >
>
> In the posted pic, radiosity is probably not needed, since I used an extra
> light. I droped that one now and use just one light_source and radiosity.
> Perhaps I could achieve better results with more light_sources and using
> falloff. But why should I try to position extra lights, if I can just use
> radiosity? Rendertimes are not that bad (about an hour for the scene
without
> aa - 3 with aa). Are there any other disadvantages in radiosity?

I would have to say clarity. Even very good radiosity solutions still have
artifacts. In your image, with all the details, they are not apparent,
though.

>
> >In my opinion, people associate "realism" with looking like a photograph.
> >But photographs don't really look too real. The contrast is compressed
and
> >then separated far too much and the perspective is usually distorted.
> People
> >are just used to using photographs as a basis for comparison and
accepting
> >anything similar as "realistic."
>
> You are right. If you have a look what photographs and the film-industrie
do
> to have there products look good and real, it is clear that what you see
> there is not what you would see with your own eyes.
>
> >If you want a more accurate way to gauge
> >realism, pretend you are looking at your image through a mirror, or
> actually
> >look at it through a mirror. Mirrors are much better at portraying
realism
> >than photographs. Your mind's eye will see the problems much more quickly
> >than just looking directly at what it expects to be a photograph.
> >
>
> I'll have to try that, but I don't think I can convince my mind that the
> rendered image is real even if I use another medium (mirror) to look at
it.
> But I get your point here and I'll try.
>
> But I don't get, what you want to tell me with these two points together.
On
> the one hand, you say "It has to have some focal blur due to the camera
> angle", on the other hand yo say "make it more like you would see it in
> nature". Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you tell me your
> thoughts - I just don't get it here.

Yeah, that's a little bit ambiguous. Maybe I should have said, "It has to
have some focul blur due to the -viewing- angle." In Pov-mode I think in
terms of "cameras" instead of "views." Too much context switching, I guess.
:)

>
> >So I guess what I'm saying is that your technical work is very
high-class,
> >but I would wager that you're not looking at the image as a peice of art
as
> >much as you are a modelling exercise. I don't mean to sound harsh, I'm
just
> >trying to make you take a different perspective on the image to help fill
> in
> >the artistic gaps.
>
> Thanks a lot. I have to admit, though, that I'm not looking at it as a
> modeling exercise either :-) It's my 5th serious scene IIRC, so a lot of
> what's coming out is just luck or hard work with hundreds of testrenders.
I
> still see myself as a newuser - many things I never used or even read
about
> and everything still takes to long.
>
> Is it art? Don't know. I tend to think that art is everythink someone
looks
> at as art. I made it to fit a special purpose (illustrate my  realm in a
> game, i'm playing), so I tend to think about it as "Gebrauchskunst" as we
> say here. Something which is nice in a way, but it's not rare and it does
> not want to deliver a message (or only very simple ones). My scenes do not
> tell stories, which is a point I want to work on one day.
>
> >
> >Again, your image is beautiful! Keep up the good work!
>
>
> Thank you for your comments. They were really helpful for me.
>
> Marc-Hendrik
>

Post a reply to this message