oh, now that turned out real nice.   ;-]
You mentioned in a previous post that you resolved your lighting issues; mind
sharing what you did?
KB-

Thomas Lake wrote:

> This is a semi final image. I plan on adding a few more objects and
> tweaking the lighting/textureing but for all intense purposes this is
> close to the final.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

bankspad wrote:

> oh, now that turned out real nice.   ;-]

Thanks!

> You mentioned in a previous post that you resolved your lighting issues; mind
> sharing what you did?

Sure thing. It turned out to be a really silly problem, almost embarrassing, I
just had to turn the light's rgb value way down, all the way to 0.3. I just
didn't expect to have to turn it down so much. When I did however it fixed the
glarey affect the light in the other image had. However with the lower light
level I had to create a copy of the light and place it at the opposite end of the
counter.

>
> KB-
>
> Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> > This is a semi final image. I plan on adding a few more objects and
> > tweaking the lighting/textureing but for all intense purposes this is
> > close to the final.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

I have one problem with the image that maybe someone can help me with? Well
actually it isn't with the image rather the posting of it. When I compressed
it on my HD I used a setting of around 10%, 90% quality. This looked fine when
I viewed it on my HD but at soon as I saw the posting I noticed a ton of JPEG
artifacts particularly the circles on the back wall around the light. Is this
just my version of netscape, a setting in it, or do other people see this?

Thomas Lake wrote:

> This is a semi final image. I plan on adding a few more objects and
> tweaking the lighting/textureing but for all intense purposes this is
> close to the final.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> I have one problem with the image that maybe someone can help me with? Well
> actually it isn't with the image rather the posting of it. When I compressed
> it on my HD I used a setting of around 10%, 90% quality. This looked fine when
> I viewed it on my HD but at soon as I saw the posting I noticed a ton of JPEG
> artifacts particularly the circles on the back wall around the light. Is this
> just my version of netscape, a setting in it, or do other people see this?

What program are you using to convert the image to jpg ? I have noticed
with PSP that if you convert from .tga to .jpg you will not see any
artifacts in the image until you close the .jpg file and then reload
it. Why it behaves like this is a mystery (I suspect the save in buffer
feature ?) but it is something I practice to make sure that what I think
I see is what it really is.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> What program are you using to convert the image to jpg ?

Ulead JPEG smart saver. I'm running it as a plugin out of Photoshop.

> I have noticed
> with PSP that if you convert from .tga to .jpg you will not see any
> artifacts in the image until you close the .jpg file and then reload
> it. Why it behaves like this is a mystery (I suspect the save in buffer
> feature ?) but it is something I practice to make sure that what I think
> I see is what it really is.

Yes I know of this odd problem in PSP, same in photoshop, I think your right about
it being because of the image being in a memory buffer. However that is not the
problem. The image looks fine even after I reload it, even if I reload it in another
program. It only seems to happen when I post the image.

>
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:

> Yes I know of this odd problem in PSP, same in photoshop, I think your right about
> it being because of the image being in a memory buffer. However that is not the
> problem. The image looks fine even after I reload it, even if I reload it in another
> program. It only seems to happen when I post the image.

  I have seen ambiguities with images I have posted here that looked
different localy. I wonder if it might be related to the data storage
method used on this server. I am pretty sure that every thing here
is stored with compression applied. I recall Chris Cason mentioning
that all image file posted here were in fact stored as a form of
plain text file. I no too little to guess more on this issue.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Nice modelling. However, I have some suggestions about the texturing. First
and foremost, the brass instruments. The texture should have a higher
brilliance value and the pigment should be darker. Perhaps also a bit lower
saturation and hue (I love HLS)
The sound-box (?) of the violin should look a bit more shiny and less noisy
<g>. Right now, I really don't see it as lacquered veneer.

Margus

Thomas Lake wrote in message <370EA34E.31C0E63C@home.com>...
>This is a semi final image. I plan on adding a few more objects and
>tweaking the lighting/textureing but for all intense purposes this is
>close to the final.
>

Post a reply to this message

I seriously doubt the images are modified on the server in any way. They are
in plain text format, i.e. they are UUencoded. This increases file size, but
decoded images are identical to their originals.
I can only guess, but here's one possibility: you have Windows, you possibly
have a high-colour (16 bit) desktop and you view the downloaded image in
Netscape or OE. AFAIK, these programs don't dither images. Most dedicated
image viewers do. Undithered 16-bit images often exhibit colour banding. So
do some 24 bit images.

Margus

Ken wrote in message <370EE5D6.48DF615D@pacbell.net>...
>
>  I have seen ambiguities with images I have posted here that looked
>different localy. I wonder if it might be related to the data storage
>method used on this server. I am pretty sure that every thing here
>is stored with compression applied. I recall Chris Cason mentioning
>that all image file posted here were in fact stored as a form of
>plain text file. I no too little to guess more on this issue.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

This has come on leaps and bounds since the first version.  How
about a moth organ, recorder, malodica and some small percussion
instrumaents in the display case.

Maybe some small area lights above shaded objects such as the
keyboard, making it look asthough there might be a spot light
somewhere, but we can't quite tell where it is kind of thing.

Cheers
Steve

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> This is a semi final image. I plan on adding a few more objects and
> tweaking the lighting/textureing but for all intense purposes this is
> close to the final.
> 
>   -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

As Margus suggests, it could be a browser image viewing
limitation, you could test this by downloading one of your images
(Music 3) for example and saving it to a different name on your
HD, then open that saved jpg file with your prefered image
viewing utility, and see if the defects still exist.

I'v noticed that some images that I view on here don't look all
that clean or the texture looks off, but save the image to disk
to look at in more detail later, and find that in my usual image
viewer (not my browser), that the image looks much better.

Steve

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> I seriously doubt the images are modified on the server in any way. They are
> in plain text format, i.e. they are UUencoded. This increases file size, but
> decoded images are identical to their originals.
> I can only guess, but here's one possibility: you have Windows, you possibly
> have a high-colour (16 bit) desktop and you view the downloaded image in
> Netscape or OE. AFAIK, these programs don't dither images. Most dedicated
> image viewers do. Undithered 16-bit images often exhibit colour banding. So
> do some 24 bit images.
> 
> Margus
> 
> Ken wrote in message <370EE5D6.48DF615D@pacbell.net>...
> >
> >  I have seen ambiguities with images I have posted here that looked
> >different localy. I wonder if it might be related to the data storage
> >method used on this server. I am pretty sure that every thing here
> >is stored with compression applied. I recall Chris Cason mentioning
> >that all image file posted here were in fact stored as a form of
> >plain text file. I no too little to guess more on this issue.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message