 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> The idea of blurring the foreground is fine: but IMO the castle should
> be in focus. The point is that one is wondering about the castle: what
> are they going to do to defend themselves. But now you can't see
> enough...
In the current version, the castle is not under attack...
Still, I was reluctant to blur the castle much, but I want the phalanx
to be the focus, and I want visible depth of field from the right file
to the left file. Moving the castle closer cuts out too much of the
landscape IMO, and the facade is kinda featureless anyway. I think a
large part of the problem is that the phalanx is entirely in the left
half of the image, and the castle entirely in the right. If everything
was shifted right a bit it might help to bring the focus on the
phalanx. I don't think I have the patience to do too much more with it
though.
> The scene is OK to me :)
Thanks.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think adjusting the tone makes a big improvement. Basically it's just
multiplying all color values by 255/221. Any thoughts?
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'phalanx_blur_tone_adj.jpg' (40 KB)
Preview of image 'phalanx_blur_tone_adj.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B704620.648045FD@faricy.net>, David Fontaine says...
> I think adjusting the tone makes a big improvement. Basically it's just
> multiplying all color values by 255/221. Any thoughts?
>
>
It's an improvement all right. In Photoshop I find a good balance with
the settings in the attachment: don't know how to compare them to your
setting, though
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Phal_PS.png' (12 KB)
Preview of image 'Phal_PS.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> In article <3B704620.648045FD@faricy.net>, David Fontaine says...
> > I think adjusting the tone makes a big improvement. Basically it's just
> > multiplying all color values by 255/221. Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> It's an improvement all right. In Photoshop I find a good balance with
> the settings in the attachment: don't know how to compare them to your
> setting, though
That looks almost exactly the same. I'm not sure why your histogram
goes up to 239, but 255*(221/255)^0.45 == 239, so maybe it's auto gamma
correction or something. I'm pretty sure that on mine the middle value
is a percentage. It defaults at 49, and if I move either of the other
two bars, its value stays fixed even though the middle bar moves too.
Anyway, I've gone ahead and added a color multiplier to my scene that
multiplies light_sources and ambient_light by whatever number I give
it. I put in 255/221 but I haven't rerendered anything yet.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Changes:
thinned out the clouds
rotated the camera a few degrees counter-clockwise
multiplied light values for brighter image
thinned and brightened fog
removed minifigs from castle
made castle flags blow in same direction as flagbearer's flag
upped blur_samples from 40 to 75
I forgot to brighten the sky color along with everything else. I'll
experiment a bit with brightening and slightly desaturating the sky, but
that's a minor change so I won't post it.
I think the minor compositional chnages help. Removing the castle
minifigs draws attention away from the castle and makes it less
ambiguous that the phalanx is in front of their own castle. Rotating
the camera decreases the area the castle takes up, but IMO more
importantly the phalanx now slightly crosses the exact center of the
image, which helps make it the focus.
The render time (not inc. parse) is up 38% to 09:02:16 because of the
blur samples, but memory use is down to 103 megs because i went from
#defining the whole castle to just placing the #include inside a
union{}. I think I can turn the blur samples back down some to maybe 60
or 55... at these settings it would take 20 days nonstop to render a
5100x3400 poster. At 40 samples it would take 14. On a new Athlon 1400
w/ 256 Megs of Corsair 2400 DDRRAM running Linux... oh, sorry, I was
daydreaming again. ;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'phalanx_blur.jpg' (85 KB)
Preview of image 'phalanx_blur.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> bla bla bla
> [Image]
Oh, and it's my birthday today :)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think your image is great. I love Lego people. I may start trying to
model some of my own some day. Oh, and Happy Birthday!!!
John
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3B74133F.4E2DE902@faricy.net...
> David Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > bla bla bla
> > [Image]
>
> Oh, and it's my birthday today :)
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I love the new composition, but for some reason the focal blur doesn't sit
right. I keep shifting my attention to the guy on the left and wondering
why he is still blurry. Ok, maybe its just me. Nice picture.
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3B7412A2.B00D21F9@faricy.net...
> Changes:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John Albarelli wrote:
>
> I think your image is great.
Thanks!
> I love Lego people.
Now now, they're just plastic, they can't love you back. ;)
> I may start trying to model some of my own some day. Oh, and Happy Birthday!!!
Just don't make your Legos better than mine!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spock wrote:
>
> I love the new composition, but for some reason the focal blur doesn't sit
> right. I keep shifting my attention to the guy on the left and wondering
> why he is still blurry. Ok, maybe its just me. Nice picture.
Perhaps rotating the entire phalanx a few degrees clockwise about the
flagbearer, so just his sword and maybe a bit of his shield are
visible. Since I plan another small render anyway before even
attempting the big one that would be fairly easy.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
