 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I've done some RL test here, and seems to mee that refractions
> on the glass do not shows focal blur
If you would have used a camera then you would have seen the focal blur.
I rendered the table edge area again with
aperture 5
blur_samples 100
confidence 0.9
variance 0.0
and didn't use Photoshop to blur the edge.
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/glassware_dof.jpg
There was a sharp edge when I used variance 1/128^2 as suggested by Warp.
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/dof_edge.png
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:02:01 +0300, Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
>Photons and exponential falloff in interior seem to work in beta 1 :)
I've read some posts in this thread and I saw what Tony is taking about
when I first looked at the image, and now that soemone else has seen it
it looks quite exagerated: I'll explain.
On the lefthand sholder of the purple vase the colour seems to fade beyond
the outline of the glass, it's also visible in the other vases but a bit
more prominent in the purple one. It's asthough you've given the glass it's
colour with media but made the media container bigger than the actual vase.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
2:01pm up 16:14, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> On the lefthand sholder of the purple vase the colour seems to fade beyond
> the outline of the glass
It's the combination of focal blur and the reflection of the white
background.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote in message
news:3b9c1068@news.povray.org...
> As real as this looks, something tells my brain it isn't. I wonder what?
>[snip]
It's the table top. The subtle reflection of the vases is *too* perfect. A small
bump or something to break it up just a bit would improve it. And for a nice
shiny new table like this, I think something very subtle would do. Just enough
to cancel out the equally subtle perfection. A smudged fingerprint or a small
scratch or two somewhere wouldn't hurt either.
I must add though, since I spend more time 'studying' photorealistic techniques
than actually 'practicing' them, my observation is more from analysis and
observation than experience. I hope one day I can demonstrate skills of your
level.
--
Batronyx ^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote:
> in news:3b9d1abc@news.povray.org Tony[B] wrote:
> > The thing that sticks out the most
> > is the lack of the reflection of the cameraperson.
>
> When I do things like this in the studio, I try everything to no be in
> the image.
This goes a bit philosophical, but I think this comes close to the
essence of the challenges of the ray-tracing: When defining scenes, be
try to reproduce all the defects and incompletinesses of the real world,
while in most real world activities and photography we try to reduce the
same defects to minimum. Maybe some day these goals reach each other
:-).
--
/"\ | iki.
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | fi/
X Against HTML Mail | zds
/ \
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/19028/
http://www.pp.htv.fi/kkivisal/glassware2.jpg
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
