Am 14.12.2011 16:38, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Phewww...! I have cobbled about 6000 stones today and am feeling tired
> ;-) but the street looks better. I had no time to sweep the dirt.
>

I hope you have recovered from that heavy labour :)

But the better this little world gets the more minor issues become real 
problems. I'm not trying to lecture I'm more thinking loud and do target 
also myself!
As I have mentioned multiple times I do not think that this "Uncanny 
Valley" within CGI exists. I've searched for studies on this subject and 
didn't find any so it lacks evidence and was obviously just lend from a 
completely different field - robotics. Within CGI it is just used as a 
buzzword and actually says nothing. At least it does not say anything 
helpful or constructive when it is meant to criticize CGI work.
In my observation the problem when getting closer to photorealism has 
nothing to do with a "valley" but with being *consistent* close to (or 
far away from) photorealism.
And to me (sorry for bringing it up again) the floor still looks wrong. 
Or better: it looks not right compared to the state of realism the other 
textures the modeling and the lighting does represent. I think it is 
mostly this kind of inconsistence that becomes more and more a problem 
the closer the overall image gets to realism.
In case of this reflecting floor, something that does produce such 
*sharp* reflections will (viewed at shallow angels) also produce strong 
reflections. If (as you say) the surface is meant to be matte it will 
never produce sharp reflections but blurry ones.
In your case you might get away without using reflection for the floor 
at all (making it realistic look blurry will dramatical increase render 
time) and use the saved render time for more HQ radiosity. This would 
also make the beams inside look less "floating".
And in case the floor gets right other currently minor things are 
starting to stand out, this is the course of getting too close to 
perfection ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message