Jim Charter wrote:

> Bill Hails wrote:
>> Orchid XP v2 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>I'm having trouble figuring out which bit *isn't* real... which is the
>>>idea, presumably. ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks! that's precisely the idea of course. I personally don't have
>> a problem with images of this type, though this one was really just
>> a proof of concept using an existing model from an earlier pic.
>> 
>> I really love the idea of making something that's obviously impossible
>> appear real, I guess lots of people into raytracing have the same
>> instinct.
>> 
> This was the earliest impetus for developing raytracing techniques I
> believe.  At any rate it is a lovely image.  I wonder if that lovelyness
> is part of what may seem not quite believeable bacause what we have is
> beautiful, delicate, diffuse, space-creating natural light, together
> with frozen motion.

Thanks Jim, insightful as ever.

I think I figured out a few things that detract from a perfectly
natural image.

Firstly I didn't really pay any attention to the relative camera
perspectives of the photo and the render, they should coincide
for a believable image, I mean if the photo is with a 50mm lens,
then the render should try to emulate the same angle of view.

Secondly the light intensity isn't correlated, I should take into
account how much light the (real) mirrorball actually reflects,
probably no more than 70% or so.

Thirdly, I had to scale the render somewhat to fit the photo, better
to render at the correct size in the first place.

-- 
Bill Hails
http://billhails.net/

Post a reply to this message