Op 21-4-2021 om 15:47 schreef Mr:
> Getting closer indeed! Now it has much more scale variations. Credit
> (unwillingly :-P) deserved by Ive for showing us merits of the original files.
> It might appear one could still prefer Ive's restored original version for the
> single occurrences showed. At least its contrast curve could stay the reference.
> 
Yes, as reference certainly, in combination with what I can find on the 
internet I want to stress.

> But as you geologist said, its bigger scale is misleading. For having struggled
> to do something that stays consistent at various scales, I know that you're
> tackling something more demanding but keep hope, do not give up, try to reach an
> as pleasing color curve. Theoretically, it could even get better than the
> original as the new pov version can produce more nuances. I believe at this
> stage showing both the current one and a much closer up framed render would do
> it justice.
> 
indeed.

> *Saturation of the colors should be slighly more and brightness slightly less,
> but don't look at the picture straight out of the renderer, only after applying
> it the gamma above 1.8 and below 2.5. if your rendered frame display gamma
> doesn't do that. I would try playing either in very small amounts with the
> brilliance keyword. or switch to another shading model if they did get
> implemented since Uberpov? if they haven't the #brilliance shift kind of does
> that "shading model translation" (OrenNayar Blinn would have sigmas for various
> rocks well referenced I think).
> 
Yes, more tweaking needed here indeed, saturation and brightness. 
Display_Gamma is set as sRGB since the days of Clipka at least.

> *The specularity looks somewhat wrong sorry to be that vague: did you use
> specular or phong, because what I more clearly meant was that it looks like
> phong : too blurry.
> 
I don't/never use phong, only specular
> 
> Now it's just all bonus, though, the material feels really official includable
> level already!
> 
Thanks! :-)

> Thanks for your work !
> 
I am getting adicted! ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message