 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] zeropps uklinuxnet
%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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39D95736.CC78C2F0@unforgettable.com>,
inq### [at] unforgettablecom wrote:
> Nonsense. They'd light their immediate area pretty well, but the overall
> illumination is much too bright. Inverse square and all that, you know.
Such a large number of candles would still light the area pretty well.
Diffuse lighting would also help. The lighting in this image seems about
right to me.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can't say about this particular building (object), but I can say that a
much higher, vaulted ceiling shows variations in shadowing. In real time you
can see shadows flicker just as the candles do. Therefore, I would think the
light should fade a tad as it approaches the ceiling, even here.
I always like Gail's work, of course! :)
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude <gri### [at] netzerocom> wrote in message
news:39dfec09@news.povray.org...
> I can't say about this particular building (object), but I can say that a
> much higher, vaulted ceiling shows variations in shadowing. In real time
you
> can see shadows flicker just as the candles do. Therefore, I would think
the
> light should fade a tad as it approaches the ceiling, even here.
I'm re rendering it with the brightness turned down and the recursion
turned up. I think it looks better dimmer.
> I always like Gail's work, of course! :)
Thank you.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
