 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob H
Subject: parking garage radiosity, two views [~57K Jpg]
Date: 23 Nov 2000 07:44:46
Message: <3a1d113e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This was what I was talking about before at the "My last radiosity plays" thread from
David Gemelli, after
having seen a parking garage lit by sun and sky and fluorescent lights when I woke up
after a short (ok, long)
nap in my truck at a shopping mall.
Needless to say this is probably never going to look the same as the Real Version TM.
I haven't put much effort into the modeling as of yet, mostly color and radiosity
adjusting. The concrete is
only rgb 0.9 with ambient 0.15 and diffuse 2 (two) with some granite 0.01 for normal.
It's a rough draft, as you'll no doubt think too.
"David (I frequently see a wonderfull real effect I want to render but... I never have
a camera to take a
shot)"
I had taken film in to develop that day also but left the camera at home. Thing is, I
never get a picture that
looks the same anyway. This rendering is no different in that regard but it's better
than nothing at all.
Bob
--
omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'parkinggarageradiosity.jpg' (42 KB)
Preview of image 'parkinggarageradiosity.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks great ! The top in the second view is excellent ! what is at the origin of
the rays ? lights ? sun ?
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bob H
Subject: Re: parking garage radiosity, always_sample on [~19K Jpg]
Date: 23 Nov 2000 08:28:45
Message: <3a1d1b8d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gemelli david" <d.g### [at] xlstudio com> wrote in message
news:3A1D1512.16F35051@xlstudio.com...
> It looks great ! The top in the second view is excellent ! what is at the origin of
the rays ? lights ? sun ?
Hi again David. I'd have to say radiosity settings are the cause, nothing else could
be.
It's awful really... the overly bright places at pillar joints, the lights don't have
correct "area"; but the
blotchiness helps texture the concrete. There isn't any specular highlighting at all.
This is what I've been using:
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 2
max_trace_level 4
ambient_light <.9,.95,.99>*.0125
ini_option "+qr"
radiosity {
brightness 0.9
count 123
error_bound 0.15
gray_threshold 0.1
low_error_factor 0.4
minimum_reuse 0.015
nearest_count 3
recursion_limit 1
always_sample off // on
pretrace_start .1
pretrace_end .01
}
}
This image attached here has always_sample on instead. I don't think much change in
render time, unfortunately
I didn't keep statistics on the previous renders though. This one (no AA) was about 3
minutes on a 500MHz
PIII.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'pgr always_sample on.jpg' (14 KB)
Preview of image 'pgr always_sample on.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks good, i only wonder about a few things:
- the bright area behind the column seems a bit too strong to me, it
should be a bit brighter than the area around but not so strong IMO, but i
don't know how to influence this.
- The artificial lights seem quite bright in relation to the sunlight,
although i'm not so sure about that (the second view seems better under
this aspect)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> - the bright area behind the column seems a bit too strong to me, it
> should be a bit brighter than the area around but not so strong IMO, but i
> don't know how to influence this.
Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
this unnatural brightening. Think about it, perfect mirror is diffuse 1
in radiosity sense. assumed_gamma 1.0 would brighten the scene correctly
radiomertrically speaking.
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
0.4 ??? I always used 0.6 ! oups ! need to change this in my last scenes to see
the result... I'll post them again...
David (very interested by this news)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gemelli david wrote:
>
> > Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
>
> 0.4 ??? I always used 0.6 ! oups ! need to change this in my last scenes to see
> the result...
That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
> are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
>
doesn't it also depend on the color or do you mean using color rgb 1 ?
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I changed some details in order to make it better than the precedent one...
Diffuse change from 0.6 to 0.4 for the back is not a bad thing...
David
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'metal_07.jpg' (25 KB)
Preview of image 'metal_07.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> >
> > That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
> > are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
> >
>
> doesn't it also depend on the color or do you mean using color rgb 1 ?
Yes. If the color is rgb 0.5 the diffuse should be 0.8.
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
