Slashdolt wrote:
> 
> I think I understand what you are saying.  For future reference, how would
> you recommend correcting that?  Should I make the sun brighter by saying
> something like "rgb <3,3,3>"?
> 
> Also, I set radiosity's "brightness" to 0.3, which may have made everything
> appear darker.

It does not make sense to give precise values for any of these aspects -
it's all a matter of relations between different values.  There have been
various methods posted in these newgroups for realistic lighting setup in
the past.

Concerning radiosity - everything except 'brightness 1.0' is not realistic
but this does not mean that it isn't useful to use different values under
certain circumstances.  You just should know what you are doing.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:13:14 -0600, Slashdolt wrote:

>> One of the nicest things about this image (that I failed to mention in
>> the comments file) is the farm in the background. So many of the Old
>Technology
>> entries had objects with very little background. Of course we all know
>> the reason for this: even objects in the background require a lot of
>> work to look good, and there's a time limit on this competition. But
>> the farm, fields, hills, and sky in this image make a great
>> environment. Jeremy obviously spent a lot of time on them.
> 
> I've had mixed feelings about the farm myself.  But since I live in an
> area surrounded by farms, it was an easy place to get inspiration.  I
> would slowly drive by silos on my way home from work.  Many of them are
> rusty, which gives them much more character.  I hope to do a farm scene
> some day. Or perhaps several scenes.
> 
> 
> 

I think the farm is a really nice touch, perhaps because I also live in an
area with many farms (I'm from Iowa).  The rusty tops on the silos are
perfect, and if the windmill is a bit rickety, well... you often see them
in worse shape than that! Also, if you spend much time driving on the
smaller highways in the midwestern U.S., you will see a lot of these
little rural cemeteries--most of them aren't full of radios, though.  :)

It's one good detail in many in this image.

	-Ed

Post a reply to this message

Renderdog wrote:
>
>I read somewhere that normal daylight is <1.0, 0.84, 0.57>*7.6  Of course
>evening light would be considerably lower, maybe closer to *3.0
>
>When I use really high values for sunlight, the light washes out surfaces
>toward white, losing detail. I guess that's similar to what a camera does,
>but I'm not necessarily trying to duplicate a camera view. On the Innocent
>Shadow image I had to be careful not to wash out the sidewalk's texture
>with too bright a sunlight (though maybe I should've sacrificed that detail
>for realism?).


That reminds me of something I *think* I've noticed, but keep forgetting to
ask...
Is there a difference in the way POV handles light color between using a
higher rgb value or using fade_power to force it higher?

When I use for sunlight something like rgb <1,.85,.6> with a fade_power of 7
it seems like the washing out to white you describe is less noticable, and
surfaces seem to show more of the light color than if I use rgb
<1,.85,.6>*7.

Is that just my eyes going bad with age, or does this actually give
different results?

RG - my 32 bit color is slowly fading to 255 shades of gray

Post a reply to this message

I've posted Radio Graves after being modified with HCREdit, in p.b.i.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:
>I've posted Radio Graves after being modified with HCREdit, in p.b.i.

I like it even better. What do you think about it?

Post a reply to this message

>
> I like it even better. What do you think about it?
>

I'm not sure.  Some things look more washed out.  Chris is obviously right
about the realism, though.

Even if I re-rendered with a brighter sun, I'd probably want to re-work some
of the textures at this point, which would start a whole new project.  Had I
known enough to create it like that from scratch, I probably would have done
so, but I didn't.  Live and learn.

I might adjust the image to make it less dark for the Zazzle poster, though.
Please see my post in p.o-t.  If you (or anyone else) have any suggestions
for the poster, let me know.

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message

This is an great idea, keep the discussion alive!

I also like image a lot! Especially the radios and the grass, which I
think looks just right. And the concept is great!
I'd like to mention the shadows. I think they are a bit long compared to
the overall color/light of the image. To me the sky looks like it's in
the middle of the day, but the shadows looks like they're sometime in
the evening.
And I'd also suggest a camera move. Perhaps moving the location down and
look_at a bit up, to create a more interesting view. It feels a bit
un-balanced to me right now, there's alot of grass (good looking, but
still.. ;) on the bottom half of the image, and the farm and background
is cut of in the top of the image, which is a bit sad.. On the other
hand, you also have to think of what catches the eye of the viewer. What
do you all think?

> Someone also mentioned the grass should be more glossy. I wonder if
the
> color of the sunlight shining on the grass might be the reason the
grass
> appears less glossy. Is the sunlight a yellowish light, or pure white?
I like the color of the grass like it is, it feels darker and fits the
scene good.

> Speaking of which, this is the second winner in a row
> dealing with death...maybe we need a "Funny" round.
Perhaps death touches people deeper than funny things. Anyway, I agree,
a funny topic would be nice

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Slashdolt wrote:

>I'm not sure.  Some things look more washed out.  Chris is obviously right
>about the realism, though.
>
>Even if I re-rendered with a brighter sun, I'd probably want to re-work some
>of the textures at this point, which would start a whole new project.  Had I
>known enough to create it like that from scratch, I probably would have done
>so, but I didn't.  Live and learn.

Since you worked so hard to perfect the original image's textures, I'm not
surprised any change would seem less. It does lose the "rich wood" look a
bit, which is a negative, and the dark colors are washed out a little.

>I might adjust the image to make it less dark for the Zazzle poster, though.
>Please see my post in p.o-t.  If you (or anyone else) have any suggestions
>for the poster, let me know.

I've found prints can look darker than onscreen (they lose that "internal
glow" a monitor creates and the color space is smaller), so the lighter
colors may print better. I think your image would look great on matte
paper.

I added a couple of images to Zazzle a few days ago and I've been surprised
at the number of people who have looked at them, and rated them. Looks like
a lively concern.

Post a reply to this message

Hi.
First of all, congratulations Mr. & Mrs. Dolt.
(wish I had the same support here :-)
And of course, congrats to everyone.
Now the post:


3e831512$1@news.povray.org...
> > I notice one of the comments suggested a radio tower instead of a farm
in
> > the background. I'm not sure that would gain much, and might be a
> > distraction.

IMO a rusty and old radio tower with some falling wires would be a very
good idea. The concept, wich is really great as it is, would be even better.
I don't think that the radio tower should replace the farm. The farm and all
the things in the background, give the "reallity" component to the image,
wich, by the way, is very surrealistic (sure you'll never see a graveyard
like this).

> > Of course the radios themselves are great, and they're so many of them!
I
> > really like the plasticy-wood surface of the radios, very realistic
> > looking, and it gives the image a classy feel.
>
> I spent countless hours working on the textures and finishes. Even so, I'm
> not 100% satisfied.  Maybe 90%.  I'm going from memory, but I believe the
> wood texture was a granite and bozo texture stretched out to look like a
> wood grain.  Then I overlayed a stretched agate pattern on top of that,
for
> the color variation.  I tried using the woods.inc, but eventually
abandoned
> it, and made my own.  Some of them also had turbulence added.  Then I
used,
> "warp {repeat 2*x flip <1,0,0> " to flip-flop the textures to look like
wood
> veneer.

The radios are simply pefect, great modelling, texturing and lightning.
Great idea to make all different and so high detailed.
It's obvious you spent a lot of time working on them..
But I think the contrast with the grass (wich seems a bit dry to me,
at least compared with the one I have where I live), it's too hard.
If the grass would be, perhaps, more glossy, or more green or
would have a less "dusty" look.
Now that I look the image once again I see that the grass behind
the first radio shadow is OK. It's only with the foreground
grass that I get that sensation.

> Some things that went wrong...
> * Lighting:  It's too dark, imho, and I ran out of time before I could
> figure out what to do about it.

Not in my monitor. I don't see it dark (maybe I'll have to check
my monitor...)

> Other thoughts...
> Overall, I tried to do this without using things like Poser, X-frog,
> pre-built models etc.  Probably because I don't own any of those things.
;-)
> But more to the point, since I don't own those things, I wanted to show
> what's possible using just POV-Ray, and a few other simple, mostly free
> tools.  I think some of the scoring may have taken that into account, but
> that's just my feeling.

Sure it's fine to do everything only with pov, but for certain things you
have to be a master. Human modelling is one of those things.
AFAIK, the better works I have seen were made with blobs, and I can
only say that of works made by H.E. Day and Lorenzo Quintana Juez,
though I have to mention Anto Matkovic and Gena with sPatch and
Hamapatch. The man walking the dog in the "other" Gena's Loneliness
entry is fabulous.
I know I can't make that (and even if I could I don't have the time), but
I want a man in my scene. So I use poser. When I have wanted to have
a tree in my scenes, I've used Gilles' Tree or Sonya's Tree. When I've
needed grass, the Gilles one. Lens Flare, a city, a galaxy? Chris Colefax.
I could continue this way but I think you know what I mean.
The goal is to get the image in your brain. I model what I can model
and I try to use the better tool for each. And when there is something
that only can be done with pov, I use pov.
 I hope I haven't started a war flame because of this, my bigger
respect for the people that only use pov and a keyboard. It's
really amazing what you get (JRG keeps me shocked).

> Finally, I'd like to thank my wife, Angela (aka Mrs. Dolt), for supporting
> me on this.  It can get lonely coming home from work and spending the next
5
> hours working on an IRTC entry.  Lonely for both of us.

It's true. Another YKYHBRTTL. Then the prize goes to you both.
Congratulations again.
Bye.

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

great image!
the only thing i can see could be improved is the radios should be a little
aged or wheathered, and perhaps the shadows are too dark.
The farm is an excellent touch and is perfect just as it is.
The grass is incredible and i like the color it has, the color of the grass
depends a lot in the weather, and this grass matches what i imagine the
weather to be like.
Back to the radios, they are beautiful. And there are so many!

a smart idea, brilliantly executed!
Congratulations!

Post a reply to this message