A lot has been changed since the last version. I've made hundreds of small
changes to the model, so the whole shape of it is rather different, which is
pretty obvious if you compare to the last version.

Of course the most obvious change is the lighting w/radiosity. TonyB set up
this for me and I'm very satisfied with the result, which I think improves
the photorealism a lot. He also kindly rendered the image for me on his
computer which is many times faster than mine.

The radiosity also makes the scene much slower though, so before TonyB sent
me the final version I didn't know how the normals looked up close. I'm
afraid they look a bit flat and fake; I almost have to do something about
that.

But overall I think this version is much better than the last one. :)

What do you think?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'piranha2.jpg' (31 KB)

Preview of image 'piranha2.jpg'

I would really appreciate some feedback you know! :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Ooops, sorry for not commenting earlier, i somehow have missed your post.  

It looks good, but in some aspects the old one looked better IMO.  What
are the radiosity settings you used for it?

The normal looks indeed a bit strange, but i'm not sure what you can do
about it.  Do you use 'normal on' in the radiosity block?

I'm not totally sure, but there seems to be a quite large area light left
of the camera.  I would try both making it smaller and totally omitting
it, it would be interesting to see the difference.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> It looks good, but in some aspects the old one
> looked better IMO.

Can you be more specific?

> What are the radiosity settings you used for it?

Here they are. TonyB made them for me.

radiosity {
   pretrace_start 0.32 pretrace_end 0.0025
   count 100 nearest_count 4
   error_bound 0.04 recursion_limit 1
   low_error_factor 0.05 gray_threshold 0
   minimum_reuse 0.015 brightness 2
   max_sample 1 adc_bailout 0.01/2 normal on
}

> The normal looks indeed a bit strange, but i'm not
> sure what you can do about it.

I could try to tweak it.

> Do you use 'normal on' in the radiosity block?

Yes.

> I'm not totally sure, but there seems to be a quite
> large area light left of the camera.  I would try both
> making it smaller and totally omitting it, it would be
> interesting to see the difference.

I will try that!

Thanks for the feedback!

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Can you be more specific?

Yes, i think the old material looked more porous, maybe the smoother
appearance now is a side effect of radiosity.  

> 
> Here they are. TonyB made them for me.
> 
> radiosity {
>    pretrace_start 0.32 pretrace_end 0.0025
>    count 100 nearest_count 4
>    error_bound 0.04 recursion_limit 1
>    low_error_factor 0.05 gray_threshold 0
>    minimum_reuse 0.015 brightness 2
>    max_sample 1 adc_bailout 0.01/2 normal on
> }
> 

Hmmm, looks interesting and very slow indeed :-)
I will have to try these settings too...
Not that i'm sure it looks better, but a lower brightness could be worth
trying.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

I love it. It made me smile and laugh out loud. It definately has some
personality :)

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> i think the old material looked more porous, maybe the
> smoother appearance now is a side effect of radiosity.

I see your point and have been thinking about that myself. I will see what I
can do.

> Not that i'm sure it looks better, but a lower brightness
> could be worth trying.

Will try!

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

The colors look very strange to me.  It kind of reminds me of those old
movies in black and white that are touched up with color.  The whole fish
looks like it is made in two tones (orange and off white).  Wouldn't real
clay have a bit more variety than that (I mean like a little variation in
the shades of orange because it dried differently)?  Maybe it would help the
overall appearance if it were on a textured plane instead of a white one.

Stephen

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3ac76763@news.povray.org...
> A lot has been changed since the last version. I've made hundreds of small
> changes to the model, so the whole shape of it is rather different, which
is
> pretty obvious if you compare to the last version.
>
> Of course the most obvious change is the lighting w/radiosity. TonyB set
up
> this for me and I'm very satisfied with the result, which I think improves
> the photorealism a lot. He also kindly rendered the image for me on his
> computer which is many times faster than mine.
>
> The radiosity also makes the scene much slower though, so before TonyB
sent
> me the final version I didn't know how the normals looked up close. I'm
> afraid they look a bit flat and fake; I almost have to do something about
> that.
>
> But overall I think this version is much better than the last one. :)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Rune
> --
> \ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
> / The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
> \ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
> / Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Ross Litscher" wrote:
> I love it. It made me smile and laugh out loud. It definately
> has some personality :)

I'm glad you find it humorous, as obviously, that is the intention. :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen Bell" wrote:
> The colors look very strange to me. The whole fish
> looks like it is made in two tones (orange and off
> white).

It is. It was made with two special types of clay. I think the colors are
very close to the colors on the real model.

> Wouldn't real clay have a bit more variety than that
> (I mean like a little variation in the shades of
> orange because it dried differently)?

I have the real model just here in front of me and there's not much
variation in the colors, but you're right, there is just a bit of variety
and I will include that in the next version. Thanks for pointing it out!

> Maybe it would help the overall appearance if it
> were on a textured plane instead of a white one.

I prefer the white plane. I don't think it make it look less photorealistic.

Thanks for the feedback!

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated March 29)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message