 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> It might not matter. So far I've only succeeded in making a more or less
> refined blotchiness. Similar to photons it seems to me. Have a look. This
> rendering used error_bound 0.2 and at 0.1 the artifacts become better
> defined spots, looking much like individual glows scattered all over the
> object (alien character) on the sides facing the glows. I used a white glow
> off camera to mimic a regular light and it never was enough to make a good
> replacement; so this has light sources for both the red and white lights,
> dimmed considerably.
>
> Bob
>
I also made the experience that when working with glows and radiosity, reducing
error_bound does not necessarily remove all artefacts, but at least it changes
things so it is worth trying.
BTW, your alien looks good although it seems somewhat polished :-)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: Glows and radiosity (testing123 ~8.5K jpg]
Date: 2 Oct 2000 10:10:21
Message: <39d8974d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39D8952E.6B9A216D@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
|
| I also made the experience that when working with glows and radiosity,
reducing
| error_bound does not necessarily remove all artefacts, but at least it
changes
| things so it is worth trying.
Okay, good to know others are seeing similar results.
| BTW, your alien looks good although it seems somewhat polished :-)
No, that would be the artifacts alone. However he (it) does have a slight
sheen from being in those hot stage lights all the time.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I love thid, the only thing that looks strange is the
reflections in the windows.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:39pm up 3 days, 16:59, 2 users, load average: 2.03, 2.04, 2.08
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After a second look I think that the shadow at the back is being
caused by the table, try moving it or rendering without it and
see what happens. I know you wouldn't think that it's the table
as it doesn't seem to be in a position where it would cast a
shadow, but strange things can happen.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:39pm up 3 days, 16:59, 2 users, load average: 2.03, 2.04, 2.08
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> Just something that I thought up while watching
> TV the other week. There are no light sources in this
> scene. Each candle flame is made up of two glows.
Candles really don't put out that much light. The room should be much
dimmer, IMO.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Candles really don't put out that much light. The room should be much
> dimmer, IMO.
a few candles don't but that many certainly would! try it yourself.
(kids, get your parents' permission before lighting that many candles
and make sure they supervise) :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine wrote:
>
> > Candles really don't put out that much light. The room should be much
> > dimmer, IMO.
>
> a few candles don't but that many certainly would!
Nonsense. They'd light their immediate area pretty well, but the overall
illumination is much too bright. Inverse square and all that, you know.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote in message
news:39D8ED9D.EAF13679@unforgettable.com...
>
> Candles really don't put out that much light. The room should be much
> dimmer, IMO.
I think I overdid the brightness slightly. Please note however that only
half of the candles in the scene are visible. (there are two rows to the
right of the
camera)
Gail
--
********************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza * System.dat not found. *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Reformat hard drive Y)es O)k *
********************************************************************
* If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0 *
********************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: GrimDude
Subject: Re: Glows and radiosity (testing123 ~8.5K jpg]
Date: 5 Oct 2000 02:55:09
Message: <39dc25cd@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
> message news:39D8952E.6B9A216D@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
> |
> | I also made the experience that when working with glows and radiosity,
> reducing
> | error_bound does not necessarily remove all artefacts, but at least it
> changes
> | things so it is worth trying.
>
> Okay, good to know others are seeing similar results.
>
> | BTW, your alien looks good although it seems somewhat polished :-)
>
> No, that would be the artifacts alone. However he (it) does have a slight
> sheen from being in those hot stage lights all the time.
>
> Bob
>
I think you have to up the recursion limit with a smaller error bound.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote in message
news:39D95736.CC78C2F0@unforgettable.com...
> Nonsense. They'd light their immediate area pretty well, but the overall
> illumination is much too bright. Inverse square and all that, you know.
>
> -Xplo
Absolutely. More Grimlike, please.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
