H Frank, thanks for your comments.



> Hi Bill!
> 
> Looks good, but the lighting needs improvement: your sun is an
> extended light source, so
>  - no shadows of the bars carrying the planets should be visible
>    on the desk

I agree, but an area light introduces too vague a shadow on the
rings of saturn. I'd pinned my hopes on a parallel light, but that
requires a pont_at statement :-(
I was trying to avoid letting the planets look too much "in the room"
as opposed to "in space", the harsh shadows on Saturn's rings
help there, I think.

>  - the disk below the sun (on the desk) should be free of shadows
>  - the shadow of the book in the foreground should be very soft
>  - more than a half sphere of the planets should be lit (esp. Venus)

same point vs area light issue, maybe a fairly tight area light would do it.

>  - where is the shadow of the desk on the ground/walls?

I made the table and planets except Saturn, and even the support for
venus no_shadow, otherwise it looks a mess: *lots* of shadows
all over the place. I'd love to think that the next povray release might
have a modifier for no_shadow that specifies a percentage.

> 
> Probably the best solution for the lighting is radiosity, but I
> haven't worked with that yet.

I have radiosity turned on, but that's just to soften the colours.
I've made a few attempts at radiosity without conventional lighting
on this pic but the sun needs lots of output, I'm not sure radiosity
alone can do it.

> I also would like so see some indication of how the planets and
> the sun are floating above their supports: magnetism? transparent
> material? riding on air streaming out of nozzles below the planets?
> electrostatic repulsion? magic?

Magic. :-)
I kind of disagree on this pont, I think the lack of connection is a sort
of statement in itself, the supports are all dead center on their planets
after all.

> 
> On the desk, between the signs for Pisces and Aries, a rectangular
> area looks less "dusty" than the rest of the desk. Is that the
> intended meaning?

well spotted, it's meant to show a previous position of the book.
I should really add some smearing in the dust to the current
position, and should maybe up the density of the dust a touch.

> 
> As a last point I suggest to drastically reduce the camera's angle.
> At the moment this angle introduces distortions to the picture
> (visible esp. at the painting) which are correct for a viewing
> distance of only some centimeters, but look wrong for normal
> viewing distances.

earlier versions had a much tighter angle, but the addition of that
set of columns receding into the distance looked bad, so the
current angle is a compromise.
Maybe it's not an optimal one.

> 
> If you put it away for a while: not too long, please; I'd like to
> see the next steps of its evolution!

Thanks!
I was really getting a bit tired of it, but I can feel a fresh wave
of enthusiasm coming on. I think I should lie down :-)

> 
>    Sputnik

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message