 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are too many renderer artifacts for it to be a photograph. Look
at the aliasing around the edge of the flamingo and in the waves closer
to the horizon. Notice that there are no secondary ripples in the water
around the legs of the flamingo. Note that the underside of the
flamingo doesn't appear to be lit by the reflection of the light from
the water.
It's certainly is a very nice render, though it could be made better if
it used better AA settings, a slightly more complicated water normal
pattern, and photons.
Peter D.
Skip Talbot wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
> but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
> Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
> source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
> simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Skip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah I'll buy that. How about the flamingo though?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aol com> wrote:
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph.
It definetely isn't a photograph.
A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.3dcadbrowser.com/preview.aspx?ModelCode=755
Skip Talbot wrote:
> Yeah I'll buy that. How about the flamingo though?
>
> Skip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, thanks... this is all helping my comments/voting. Would have been
much easier if he just said so in the first place.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lutz-Peter Hooge wrote:
> Skip Talbot <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
>>to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
>>a photograph.
>
>
> It definetely isn't a photograph.
> A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and white,
> or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
>
> But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
>
> Lutz-Peter
Yep, Floyd looks ok to me, but Way.jpg is pieces of photos layered in
Photoshop. Also theroad1.jpg states in the textfile that its a terragen
render with a POV tree layered in using GIMP. I suspect he simply
didn't read the rules. Too bad, since its actually pretty good.
RG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow? Alpha output
from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:4137e40d$1@news.povray.org...
> I caught that one too... how do you think he did the shadow? Alpha output
> from POV, GIMP generated somehow, or drawn?
I was wondering that. I guess it's drawn but it's pretty convincing.
As for "way.jpg", I'm puzzled by the fact that it's such a boring photo! Surely
if you want to convince people that a photo is actually CG you take a more
interesting photo?
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would have guessed he just didn't understand the rules. But I see he took
the time to put down that he used 3DSMAX. Now could the building actually
be rendered? I know the sky is definitely a photo.
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I concluded that the building could be rendered, but if it was rendered
the camera would be placed closer to it or at some more interesting angle. In
fact the only explanation I could find for the angle of the shot was that it was
taken by hand on a cheap camera. Of course that may be a *really* clever way to
make a photorealistic CG picture, but it's infinitely more likely that actually
there's no CG at all.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:41380544$1@news.povray.org...
> I would have guessed he just didn't understand the rules. But I see he took
> the time to put down that he used 3DSMAX. Now could the building actually
> be rendered? I know the sky is definitely a photo.
>
> Skip
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Program ended abnormally on 02/09/2004 18:15, Due to a catastrophic Peter Duthie
error:
> There are too many renderer artifacts for it to be a photograph. Look
> at the aliasing around the edge of the flamingo and in the waves closer
> to the horizon. Notice that there are no secondary ripples in the water
> around the legs of the flamingo. Note that the underside of the
> flamingo doesn't appear to be lit by the reflection of the light from
> the water.
Sounds like a photoshop job to me. The white line on the back of the flamingo
is either a really stunning work of the light going through its feathers or an
ordinary cropping job. Since, as you point out, there are other deficiencies
with the lighting, I'm temped to go for the latter.
I hope I'm wrong though...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* videotron.ca */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It definetely isn't a photograph.
> A photograph would have either the sun and sky completely overexposed and
white,
> or the bird would just be a silhouette. Most likely both.
>
> But I'm sure way.jpg is a photograph.
I second that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:41378ee1$1@news.povray.org...
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually
be
> a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of
POV-Ray
> but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
> Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
> source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
> simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
>
He posted this image and variations of it in the French newsgroup newsgroup
news://news.zoo-logique.org/3D.Pov-Ray. Search for a message by "Laf" posted
on August 13. He says that the flamingo is a 3DS model from a royalty-free
CD, converted with Poseray. One of the image variations shows a typical
POV-Ray bozo sky and the flamingo is seen in slightly different positions,
so there's no much doubt it's 100% POV-Ray.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks Gilles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dans le post précédent Skip Talbot a bredouillé :
> What do you guys think about the entry, Floyd. It looks like a photograph
> to me, and while this usually is a high praise, I think it might actually be
> a photograph. The water definitely looks like it could come out of POV-Ray
> but together with the flamingo and the reflections, I have my doubts.
> Adding to my suspicions is the lack of description in the text file and no
> source. The author claims its POV but he's going to take a hit on scoring
> simply because of the lack of explanation. Any thoughts on this?
>
> Skip
I'm sorry for the lack of zip file.
The image is 100% Pov-Ray.
I'll post it on povray.binaries.scene-files newsgroup asap.
--
Laf.
Unable to join #real_life (You're banned).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> He posted this image and variations of it in the French newsgroup newsgroup
> news://news.zoo-logique.org/3D.Pov-Ray. Search for a message by "Laf" posted
> on August 13. He says that the flamingo is a 3DS model from a royalty-free
> CD, converted with Poseray. One of the image variations shows a typical
> POV-Ray bozo sky and the flamingo is seen in slightly different positions,
> so there's no much doubt it's 100% POV-Ray.
>
> G.
>
But is it 100% his?
A little late, but I find this browsing the newsgroup. Nice trick with
the cylinder and way faster then using media.
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3C40A69484.8040003%40hotmail.com%3E/#%3C40A69484.8040003%40hotmail.com%3E
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
