 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> > > Not a problem on a Mac. ;)
> >
> > I hardly see how glare and black-level can be platform dependent...
>
> Macs have a different gamma(around 1.8), so the darker areas show up as
> brighter on Macs. I could see nearly every detail in even the darkest
> areas on my system(though it retains the dimly-lit look).
Wouldn't it get washed out?
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> The lighting looks nice but not very lego-like(tm)
Thanks
> How about a second version with bright sky, radiosity, some reflection ?
That was the first version :) (minus radiosity)
> Ok, you should then leave out the 42 light sources to get it rendered within one
> week ;-)
Heheh
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> This image makes me want to construct with
> Lego again !
>
> But isn't there a tiny detail missing ?
> The word "Lego" on every little "cylinder".
I've tried it, it's not worth the increase in aa, render time or
memory...
Besides, not all the Lego pieces are copyrighted, so if I make something
out of noncopyrighted pieces I'm free from the long arm of Lego. ;)
> Nice idea to use a wide angled camera here.
> This combined with the dim light spots
> shows the Lego bricks(?) in a way that I
> have never seen them before.
There were two reasons I wanted to use ultra_wide_angle; one because I
wanted to place the camera inside the castle but still show it off, and
two because increased angle exaggerates perspective and puts you to
scale with the castle more.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Chris Huff wrote:
>
> > > > Not a problem on a Mac. ;)
> > >
> > > I hardly see how glare and black-level can be platform dependent...
> >
> > Macs have a different gamma(around 1.8), so the darker areas show up as
> > brighter on Macs. I could see nearly every detail in even the darkest
> > areas on my system(though it retains the dimly-lit look).
>
> Wouldn't it get washed out?
Looked pretty good to me.
The pure blacks stay black, and the brighter areas don't change a whole
lot, so it really just serves to bring out the detail in the shadows.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A0B6F13.B0BA9631@faricy.net>, David Fontaine
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
> Wouldn't it get washed out?
No, black stays black, and white stays white, only the values in between
are different. Sometimes lighter images created on PC's appear washed
out, but this one looks good.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wicked cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pete wrote:
> Wicked cool.
:))
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
