 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Once again, just fishing for opinions, suggestions, critics, etc etc
etc...
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'temple1.jpg' (67 KB)
Preview of image 'temple1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: 2nd image (work in progress) - temple1.jpg (1/1)
Date: 1 Jun 2000 00:13:41
Message: <3935e2f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've wondered if you are not able to post a single message with attachment. Didn't
notice if anyone had mentioned this before about multiple posts such as yours, that
it's
not the usual way and all. I can set this newsreader (OE) to do either way but it
seems
cumbersome to separate the text from the image(s).
The rendering is going well, I think it has too much ambient in the stone parts but
that's common for it to be either too much or too little.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I just fixed the problem with the multiple posts. Sorry about
that. I was playing around with filters and such, and found a setting
to include the text message with the binary attachment.
I am re-rendering the image as we speak, (so to speak, hehe), I have
included another light source, to the Right hand side, and toned them
both down a bit, so they are not FULL brightness. Also, i turned on
focal blur for the camera.
The one question I have, Its not cheating to use Moray to create
portions of the scenes is it?
Thanks,
Dave
On Wed, 31 May 2000 23:12:53 -0500, "Bob Hughes"
<per### [at] aol com?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>I've wondered if you are not able to post a single message with attachment. Didn't
>notice if anyone had mentioned this before about multiple posts such as yours, that
it's
>not the usual way and all. I can set this newsreader (OE) to do either way but it
seems
>cumbersome to separate the text from the image(s).
>
>The rendering is going well, I think it has too much ambient in the stone parts but
>that's common for it to be either too much or too little.
>
>Bob
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What are good settings to use for Focal Blur?
Right now, i am using:
camera {
location < 44.300, 93.000, 5.000>
sky < 0.00000, 0.00000, 1.00000>
up < 0.0, 0.0, 1.0>
right < 1.81060, 0.0, 0.0>
angle 43.61300 // Vertical 24.922
look_at < -10.900, 5.100, 8.400>
focal_point <-10.900, 5.100, 8.400>
aperture 1.0
blur_samples 100
confidence 0.999
variance 0.0001
}
On Wed, 31 May 2000 23:12:53 -0500, "Bob Hughes"
<per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
>I've wondered if you are not able to post a single message with attachment. Didn't
>notice if anyone had mentioned this before about multiple posts such as yours, that
it's
>not the usual way and all. I can set this newsreader (OE) to do either way but it
seems
>cumbersome to separate the text from the image(s).
>
>The rendering is going well, I think it has too much ambient in the stone parts but
>that's common for it to be either too much or too little.
>
>Bob
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: 2nd image (work in progress) - temple1.jpg (1/1)
Date: 1 Jun 2000 02:06:46
Message: <3935fd76@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To answer the other question, no, I don't call Moray or any other modeler a
cheat when POV-Ray is ultimately the ray tracer. I do call it a skill I lack
a lot of, me being primarily and almost exclusively a pov file script writer
:-)
"Dave Rich" <est### [at] jetcablecom> wrote in message
news:dbqbjsstscno6ji74910iblq5ug2crr7sf@4ax.com...
| What are good settings to use for Focal Blur?
|
| Right now, i am using:
|
| camera
| location < 44.300, 93.000, 5.000>
| sky < 0.00000, 0.00000, 1.00000>
| up < 0.0, 0.0, 1.0>
| right < 1.81060, 0.0, 0.0>
| angle 43.61300 // Vertical 24.922
| look_at < -10.900, 5.100, 8.400>
| focal_point <-10.900, 5.100, 8.400>
| aperture 1.0
| blur_samples 100
| confidence 0.999
| variance 0.0001
| }
|
Those are high quality settings there, I often use much less than the best in
order to reduce render times. I'm talking about the variance most because the
aperture is the amount of blurring which is scene dependant. I'd say aperture
0.5 goes well for most typical scenes 1.0 and above become more like
telescope/binocular/microscope focuses. But it's subjective to the artist.
You might see others here have differing opinions/advice.
The samples is 2nd most important I'd say, next to aperture. And since all
this is so CPU clock-speed dependant as well then I'd suggest using a number
half your CPU MHz and go from there (likewise in variance as in 1/250 for a
500MHz). Btw, confidence doesn't appear to be as notable of change in quality
and speed I think. A value of 1.0 would do fine for the most part since the
default of 0.9 makes little difference.
Again, I think others might have other observations.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Water looks nice. Some antialiasing would probably do wonders for the
stone, though.
--
Xplo Eristotle
http://start.at/xplosion/
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun"
-Pink Floyd
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the image directly before this so uncluttered... But this is good
all the same... I think a shooting star behind the pillars would be
nice... The marble could stand to be more smooth and shiny like the
water...?
Dave Rich wrote:
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How did you make the spiral column
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks pretty cool, the water looks great. It might help if you toned down
the ambient light. A little less ambient lighting would bring out some
shadows and create some nice contrast around the pillars.
-Chris-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
