Cris Williams wrote:
> 
> I agree that the letters need shadows.  I will add these when I prepare the
> image for placement on the web site that it was designed for.
> 
> You lost me on the other shadow suggestion.  The upper left shadow on which
> plate, the larger one or the small one?  What do you mean by "brighter
> shadow"?  The blue background on the smaller disk is darker at the top
> because it is a gradient.  The smaller disk doesn't cast a shadow because I
> think the image is cleaner without it.  There are two lights casting
> shadows, one light is not as bright as the other.  I realize the shadows are
> kinda harsh, but I think that adds some impact to the logo.  Or maybe not?
> 

Sorry if i was not clear enough, with the dark shadow i meant the shadow the
outer rim of the plate is casting on the plate near the word 'wright'.  With the
lighter shadows i meant the shadows the stuff above the plate is casting on the
plate at the opposite side (lower right, near the T of District) 

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

I think I see what you're talking about.  The rim is lit more harshly at the
top and top-left and as a result casts a darker shadow.  There are six
lights sources around the logo, and the brightest one is causing this.
Unfortunately, that same light is also keeping the plate's surface bumps
from getting washed out.  Getting the lighting correct has been the toughest
part of this project because of all the bevels and layers.  :-(

Cris

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39EC7A2A.A7FABF38@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
>
> Cris Williams wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the letters need shadows.  I will add these when I prepare
the
> > image for placement on the web site that it was designed for.
> >
> > You lost me on the other shadow suggestion.  The upper left shadow on
which
> > plate, the larger one or the small one?  What do you mean by "brighter
> > shadow"?  The blue background on the smaller disk is darker at the top
> > because it is a gradient.  The smaller disk doesn't cast a shadow
because I
> > think the image is cleaner without it.  There are two lights casting
> > shadows, one light is not as bright as the other.  I realize the shadows
are
> > kinda harsh, but I think that adds some impact to the logo.  Or maybe
not?
> >
>
> Sorry if i was not clear enough, with the dark shadow i meant the shadow
the
> outer rim of the plate is casting on the plate near the word 'wright'.
With the
> lighter shadows i meant the shadows the stuff above the plate is casting
on the
> plate at the opposite side (lower right, near the T of District)
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Cris Williams wrote:
> 
> I think I see what you're talking about.  The rim is lit more harshly at the
> top and top-left and as a result casts a darker shadow.  There are six
> lights sources around the logo, and the brightest one is causing this.
> Unfortunately, that same light is also keeping the plate's surface bumps
> from getting washed out.  Getting the lighting correct has been the toughest
> part of this project because of all the bevels and layers.  :-(
> 
> Cris
> 

You already mentioned you are using a lot of lights when you posted your first
version, but in my opinion it's quite possible to achieve realistic results with
only few light sources.  Some things important for that:

- light source not near the camera
- light source far enough away
- area lights for soft shadows
- brilliance and roughness in the finish statement are most important for the
diffuse and specualar components

There is nothing against many light sources in general, apart form slower
rendering, but managing a lot of light sources when adding modification can be
quite difficult (as you also mentioned) and does not neccessarily lead to better
results.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

My scene is approximately 8 units across from compas point to compass point
and about .75 units tall.  My lights are away from the camera and all fall
within a 20-30 unit radius of the logo.  Are these lights way too close?  I
have turned the intensity down for all but one of them - will this
compensate properly for lights that are too close?

"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39EC94F4.A18B80E8@schunter.etc.tu-bs.de...
>
>
> Cris Williams wrote:
> >
> > I think I see what you're talking about.  The rim is lit more harshly at
the
> > top and top-left and as a result casts a darker shadow.  There are six
> > lights sources around the logo, and the brightest one is causing this.
> > Unfortunately, that same light is also keeping the plate's surface bumps
> > from getting washed out.  Getting the lighting correct has been the
toughest
> > part of this project because of all the bevels and layers.  :-(
> >
> > Cris
> >
>
> You already mentioned you are using a lot of lights when you posted your
first
> version, but in my opinion it's quite possible to achieve realistic
results with
> only few light sources.  Some things important for that:
>
> - light source not near the camera
> - light source far enough away
> - area lights for soft shadows
> - brilliance and roughness in the finish statement are most important for
the
> diffuse and specualar components
>
> There is nothing against many light sources in general, apart form slower
> rendering, but managing a lot of light sources when adding modification
can be
> quite difficult (as you also mentioned) and does not neccessarily lead to
better
> results.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Cris Williams wrote:
> 
> My scene is approximately 8 units across from compas point to compass point
> and about .75 units tall.  My lights are away from the camera and all fall
> within a 20-30 unit radius of the logo.  Are these lights way too close?  I
> have turned the intensity down for all but one of them - will this
> compensate properly for lights that are too close?
> 

Probably not, I meant, that the main light should hit the object at similar
angles on all ends.  

Additional low intensity lights sometimes tend to wash out the scene and produce
unwanted 'ghost shadows' and additional highlights.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

I like it alot. Good Job!

--
C.J. - POV User
POV Ray Study Gallery
www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
hou### [at] yahoocom
Cris Williams <wil### [at] udriudaytonedu> wrote in message
news:39ec54b0@news.povray.org...
> Well, here's what I ended up with.  The background is just something I
stuck
> there to replace the previous white one.  Suggestions are always welcome!
>
> Cris
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Thanks!

"C.J. - POV User" <hou### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39ecf3e7@news.povray.org...
> I like it alot. Good Job!
>
> --
> C.J. - POV User
> POV Ray Study Gallery
> www.crosswinds.net/~povstudy
> hou### [at] yahoocom
> Cris Williams <wil### [at] udriudaytonedu> wrote in message
> news:39ec54b0@news.povray.org...
> > Well, here's what I ended up with.  The background is just something I
> stuck
> > there to replace the previous white one.  Suggestions are always
welcome!
> >
> > Cris
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In my opinion a light source from a further distance gives more pleasing
results, particularly when using radiosity. Moving your light source may
also bring out incongruities in object finishes. Why not try it out and see?
:)

A darker wood for the background wouldn't hurt, either.

Grim

Post a reply to this message

in povray.binaries.images, Cris Williams says...
> Well, here's what I ended up with.  The background is just something I stuck
> there to replace the previous white one.  Suggestions are always welcome!
> 
> Cris
I like it: there is only IMO the fact that the lettering on top is 
farther from the outer circle than the bottom characters. It would seem 
more logical to move them closer (or the bottom text farther away...).
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

I may be wrong, but I think its an illusion caused by the dark shadow along
the bottom of the outer circle.  There's that pesky lighting problem again!

Cris

"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG.14580e40f220435b98969e@news.povray.org...
> in povray.binaries.images, Cris Williams says...
> > Well, here's what I ended up with.  The background is just something I
stuck
> > there to replace the previous white one.  Suggestions are always
welcome!
> >
> > Cris
> I like it: there is only IMO the fact that the lettering on top is
> farther from the outer circle than the bottom characters. It would seem
> more logical to move them closer (or the bottom text farther away...).
> --
> Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message