Thanks for your comments, and sorry I haven't been keeping a close eye
on this thread :-)
I've been working on it most of my spare time since I last posted, expect
an update soon.

Mack Tuesday wrote:
> It has definitely improved.  I really like the prominances on the Sun and
> I agree that the rings work very well.
> 
> I'm no expert, but here are some things I'd try if I were you:
> - Change the number and position of the prominances.  The more I look at
> the Sun in this picture, the more the prominances seem imbalanced somehow.

I've rotated the sun slightly (15*y). That improves the balance.

> - Change that innermost planet.  It doesn't look like any planet in our
> system.
> It's too big and shiny to be Mercury and too small and grey to be Venus.

dunno, I kind of like it (It's meant to be Venus). I'm not aiming for
scientific accuracy, just an impression.

> - That sun appears to be the only light in that room, so perhaps the room
> should appear darker.  If the room is darker and the dark sides of the
> planets show less ambient light, it might improve the look of the room.
> Either that or add some other lights.

I've gone round and round with the lighting, I hope I've fixed things.

> - Is the sun already an area light?  I think if you made it an area light
> approximately the size of Earth and turned "orient" on there might be some
> improvement.

For my final render I'm using a circular area light the same size as the 
sun, with orient, but it changes the render time from 8-9 hours to 4-5 days 
at 1920x1440 so I'm fixing other stuff before I do that again.

I've also made each planetary body its own light_group with a parallel
light at the sun's center, and fixed up the radiosity.

> - Increase the apparent detail in the wall texture and maybe change the
> finish.  Right now it looks like some sort of plastic veneer.

Terracotta, terracotta :-) Hopefully the lighting fixes will improve that.

> - The far part of the table should appear grayer and less shiny than the
> near part.  That's because the surface over there is being viewed at a
> more oblique angle, which means there will be a greater density of dust
> particles along the line of sight.  I wonder if a thin layer of scattering
> media would do the trick.

That's where I'm at right now, exchanging a semi-transparent disc for a 
cylinder with media, I'm also adding smudges from the book-hole to the 
book, and increasing the density of the dust a bit, to make the marks a bit 
more obvious.

> Just so you know, I don't criticize when I don't like a piece.  (I often
> don't criticize even when I do, however.  Laziness.)

Thanks!  I've been working on this since June, off and on (mostly on since I 
last posted), hopefully the end result will have been worth it.

> Bill Hails wrote:
>>I've been fiddling with this old pic for over a month now,
>>and I need to start something new, but I thought somebody
>>might like it.

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message