>For real realism, I suggest cylinders with bevelled/rounded edges. Some
>scratches (ever so faint) would help too (that goes for all surfaces,
>actually - especially the wood could use some roughening).


Good idea. How do you model this however? Rounding/bevelling I can see, but
the scratches? Altering the texture somehow? I can see making the surface
normal vary according to some pattern ( large scale agate? ), but that's not
scatches.

>Even though it is quite possible to create totally polished and smooth
>marble, stone and wood cylinders (with razor-sharp edges) and spheres in
>reality, the illusion of photo-realism is much more believable if the
>objects are *not* that perfect. Mind: They don't have to look weathered.
>Just that little tiny touch of imperfection that is hardly visible to the
>eye, but gets recognized subconciously.


Hmm - I wasn't looking at the models at all in this image, just the
camera/lighting - but you have a good point, yes.

>
>Is the image supposed to be so dark? It looks a little bit washed-out into
>the grey direction.


It's not supposed to be so dark, no - but the wash out occurs with the focal
blur, and I've corrected it with resetting the assumed_gamma, which just
changes the color of the wash out I guess.

>Also I don't get the bright globe at the top. I guess it is some kind of
>lamp? Is it so blurry because of the focal blur or did you use media?
>


It's the light source, yes, an area light with a looks_like { sphere ..... }
statement. As for the blur, that is only due to the focal blur.

>So long,
>Johannes.
>


Thanks for your input :)

Post a reply to this message