 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow its been a while since I posted in here... I made a few
modifications to the picture, scaled down the pigments for one thing. I
added the torches into the scene, changed the fade_power to 2.0 after
learning more about it, changed the Style of the rail supports (and
their frequency).
I was also forced to tweak the media settings for intervals and
samples in the flames in order to make it render with any alacrity even
so render time was about 18 hours.
There are still a few more things I would like to do with this
picture, I was considering applying an ivy pattern relief of some sort
to the posts and the rail top make it less glossy and maybe more
interesting.
Anthony D. Baye
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'templestairs.jpg' (190 KB)
Preview of image 'templestairs.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ACA1F8A.25340072@rapidnet.com>, banty says...
> Wow its been a while since I posted in here... I made a few
> modifications to the picture, scaled down the pigments for one thing. I
> added the torches into the scene, changed the fade_power to 2.0 after
> learning more about it, changed the Style of the rail supports (and
> their frequency).
> I was also forced to tweak the media settings for intervals and
> samples in the flames in order to make it render with any alacrity even
> so render time was about 18 hours.
> There are still a few more things I would like to do with this
> picture, I was considering applying an ivy pattern relief of some sort
> to the posts and the rail top make it less glossy and maybe more
> interesting.
>
>
> Anthony D. Baye
There is one problem with your image: I have to brighten it quite a lot
to see it properly. I suppose it has to do with my monitor settings,
though Photoshop says the brightest levels that are significantly
present are about .375; so maybe you _could_ increase the lighting
levels some?
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The problem is most likely due to my the assumed Gamma settings I used
when I rendered. ( My assumed Gamma was 1.8, witch is mac standard ) the
light source intensity was calculated so that the additive effect of the
light sources ( There are twelve ) would only work out to a single light
source with an intensity of 1, or thereabouts. ( which means that each light
has an intensity of 0.09375 )
I suppose that I could increse the assumed gamma to 2.2 and render again,
but it would take a while and I'd reather finish the scene first.
thanx for the input though.
Anthony D. Baye
Sander wrote:
> In article <3ACA1F8A.25340072@rapidnet.com>, banty says...
> > Wow its been a while since I posted in here... I made a few
> > modifications to the picture, scaled down the pigments for one thing. I
> > added the torches into the scene, changed the fade_power to 2.0 after
> > learning more about it, changed the Style of the rail supports (and
> > their frequency).
> > I was also forced to tweak the media settings for intervals and
> > samples in the flames in order to make it render with any alacrity even
> > so render time was about 18 hours.
> > There are still a few more things I would like to do with this
> > picture, I was considering applying an ivy pattern relief of some sort
> > to the posts and the rail top make it less glossy and maybe more
> > interesting.
> >
> >
> > Anthony D. Baye
>
> There is one problem with your image: I have to brighten it quite a lot
> to see it properly. I suppose it has to do with my monitor settings,
> though Photoshop says the brightest levels that are significantly
> present are about .375; so maybe you _could_ increase the lighting
> levels some?
> --
> Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's supposed to look dark and mysterious and It seems to work fine on my
computer. The problem is most likely with the assumed gamma (I rendered with
an assumed gamma of 1.8). I could re-render with a gamma of 2.0 or 2.2 but
it took so long to render the first time, I'd rather not render it again
until I've made a more substantial addition.
Sander wrote:
> In article <3ACA1F8A.25340072@rapidnet.com>, banty says...
> > Wow its been a while since I posted in here... I made a few
> > modifications to the picture, scaled down the pigments for one thing. I
> > added the torches into the scene, changed the fade_power to 2.0 after
> > learning more about it, changed the Style of the rail supports (and
> > their frequency).
> > I was also forced to tweak the media settings for intervals and
> > samples in the flames in order to make it render with any alacrity even
> > so render time was about 18 hours.
> > There are still a few more things I would like to do with this
> > picture, I was considering applying an ivy pattern relief of some sort
> > to the posts and the rail top make it less glossy and maybe more
> > interesting.
> >
> >
> > Anthony D. Baye
>
> There is one problem with your image: I have to brighten it quite a lot
> to see it properly. I suppose it has to do with my monitor settings,
> though Photoshop says the brightest levels that are significantly
> present are about .375; so maybe you _could_ increase the lighting
> levels some?
> --
> Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Too dark! Other than that, I think it's maybe oversaturated, but coming along
well.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What do you mean by over-saturated? The fact that it's dark is something I had
planned, Going to try increasing the assumed gamma next time I render it.
Tell me if there's a problem with my settings.
The stats:
AA Settings:
Threshold: 0.0200
Recursion Depth: 2
Jitter 0.2
Assumed Gamma: 1.8
Media Settings:
intervals: 20
samples: 2, 5
scattering: 1, White
Lights:
Number: 12
intensity: 0.09375
Anthony D. baye
David Fontaine wrote:
> Too dark! Other than that, I think it's maybe oversaturated, but coming along
> well.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
banty wrote:
> What do you mean by over-saturated?
The colors are too strong, on a scale from grayscale to pure rgb. May not be a
problem with lighting agjusted though, I don't know.
The brightness problem I think is in part because you're on a mac... macs are 1.8
gamma, PCs are 2.2.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
