 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would expect more to be visible than is in the first two, but I'm not
sure how accurate the third is. (Is this supposed to be outdoor?) It's
a matter of the perception of contrast; photographic compression would
be a great feature for POV.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 20:42:51 +0200, John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
> These three images use three lighting models;
> #1 has one area light, with ambient set to 0 for all textures.
> #2 has the same light, and an ambient setting of .1.
> #3 has the same light, at a slightly lower intensity, plus two faint
> shadowless lights at right angles to the main light. The ambient
> value of all textures is 0.
Nice tests. What is the question ?
ABX
BTW: Have you compared this with radiosity ? I know that You don't want
radiosity for 20-minutes per frame animation but could be worth to compare
result.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd say number 3 is best because it shows the shape better than ambient
light ever does.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The third looks best, IMO. I'm surprised shadowless lights worked so
well. The 'OK' on the robot's lcd is a little ominous....
John VanSickle wrote:
> These three images use three lighting models;
>
> #1 has one area light, with ambient set to 0 for all textures.
> #2 has the same light, and an ambient setting of .1.
> #3 has the same light, at a slightly lower intensity, plus two faint
> shadowless lights at right angles to the main light. The ambient
> value of all textures is 0.
>
--
Samuel Benge
sbe### [at] caltelcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I prefer #3 because it shows more detail on the front. However, I
guess this bot is supposed to be menacing and #2 would be my choice
with its "face" in shadow. #1's shadow is too harsh for my eyes.
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Come on yall. the point is that shadowless lights can give more interesting
and perhaps realistic effects than ambient finishes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Come on yall. the point is that shadowless lights can give more
interesting
> and perhaps realistic effects than ambient finishes.
I agree with this. Other than for visible light sources and such, I don't
use ambient in my textures anymore.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge wrote:
>
> The third looks best, IMO. I'm surprised shadowless lights worked so
> well. The 'OK' on the robot's lcd is a little ominous....
He is merely agreeing to go first into the dungeon.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alf Peake wrote:
>
> I prefer #3 because it shows more detail on the front. However, I
> guess this bot is supposed to be menacing
Not menacing, just ready.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3CFFA4D5.E2BB8ED1@hotmail.com...
> Alf Peake wrote:
> >
> > I prefer #3 because it shows more detail on the front. However, I
> > guess this bot is supposed to be menacing
>
> Not menacing, just ready.
Listen mate!! With those tools in his/her mits its not about to pat me
on the back. Its menacing :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
