 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look
quite
> messy.
This looks really really nice.. I love the subtle changes in light on
the tunnel wall, and for me I really like the lighting you've achieved
with this, it looks very natural. The shadows have a good level of
contrast too.
Steve
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> > I really need a faster computer...
>
> Don't we all...
>
:-)
> There seems to be a repititive element in the four stones at the waterline
> on the left. Each has the same funky light/dark patch at thenear end.
> Looking closes, a similar sort of funkiness is happening on the next row up.
> I don't know if it's a trick of the light (heh) or a glitch in your
> randomization process, but you might want to play with that a bit.
Ah, finally someone who noticed that, i also saw it when the render was
going on, seems i 'forgot' a random variation of the noise... :-)
>
> Other than that, it looks excellent. The splotchy darness actually works
> well for me, as there's reflections from the water.
>
Thanks, i agree it looks quite ok, but in a larger render... i probably
should forget about that anyway...
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sacrofts wrote:
>
> This looks really really nice.. I love the subtle changes in light on the tunnel
wall, and for me I really like the lighting you've achieved with this, it looks very
natural. The shadows have a good level of contrast too.
>
Thanks, but IMO the contrast in a sunlight scene like this should be
higher - if you compare it to the previous renders, i think the difference
is quite obvious.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beautiful ! I love it! it's photo-realistic...
did you use focal blur?
How did you do the horizon? Fog or media? And for the clouds?
And the rocks, are they isosurfaces or height_fields?
Just trying to learn...
Louis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice, but IMHO usually sea and sky will have quite the same color
on the horizon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thanks, but IMO the contrast in a sunlight scene like this should be
> higher - if you compare it to the previous renders, i think the
difference
> is quite obvious.
I just found the first version, I see what you mean, but I wouldn't have
noticed the difference without comparing the two.
Steve
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Beautiful ! I love it! it's photo-realistic...
Thank you.
> did you use focal blur?
No, i usually don't like focal blur in outdoor (landscape) pictures.
> How did you do the horizon? Fog or media?
It's just fog, i would like it more dense, but the foreground does suffer
from that, maybe meadia would be a good idea.
> And for the clouds?
Just a large sphere with bozo.
> And the rocks, are they isosurfaces or height_fields?
>
isosurfaces ('spheres' with granite pigment function)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Very nice, but IMHO usually sea and sky will have quite the same color
> on the horizon.
I don't really think so, of course dust can make the horizon line quite
invisible, but i think the color usually differs.
Anyway i use reflection_type 1 and reflection_max 1.0. I'm not really
satisfied with how the near horizon part looks so maybe i will try some
changes.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The wonderful thing about this image is the "actual transparentness" of the
water: pleasing value-add realism.
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
> the upper bricks.
>
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
> messy.
>
> I really need a faster computer...
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> The wonderful thing about this image is the "actual transparentness" of the
> water: pleasing value-add realism.
>
I actually don't really like the under water part that much, it looks too
uniform IMO. Sadly refractive photons don't work well here as mentioned
before.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
