 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
>
> I think we don't have to copy the reference painting one by one. We just
> have to use it as a reference. So some differences should not be considered
> as a big problem :)
Gotcha
>
> Looks great! Maybe just lacks some creases on the clothes
Yes I see on the high res render that creases in the clothes will be
necessary. So I will tweak it further. Think I may have gotten a virus
though, so you might miss me for awhile if I have to reinstall.
-Jim
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes I see on the high res render that creases in the clothes will be
> necessary. So I will tweak it further. Think I may have gotten a virus
> though, so you might miss me for awhile if I have to reinstall.
Maybe it makes sense to try to simulate it with textures/normals
because real creases can drastically increase mesh size.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gena" <obu### [at] mail com> wrote in message
news:3E8DE0C5.D3D845BD@mail.com...
>
> I think we don't have to copy the reference painting one by one. We just
> have to use it as a reference. So some differences should not be
considered
> as a big problem
Exact duplication would be difficult. I had only opened the two pictures to
look at them once and a while as I built up the model of the front of the
cathedral. I was mismatching positions of objects quite a bit. It doesn't
have parts aligned with each other, much less the rest of the scene. Guess
you could say I only put a sketch or draft together.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Figuring this to be a good example for POV's histogram feature I gave it a
try. Been a while since I had done one of these. You can see that the most
calculation intensive parts seem to be occuring at the shadow edges. What I
was expecting to find instead was a bright spot where the top of the dome
meets the part atop it, since that's where I notice the most slowdown occur.
Or so it appears to me as I watch the rendering take place.
This image was doubled in size from original, no radiosity and no AA was
done. I also changed contrast in the post process so it would show better.
Oh, and it is a pixel by pixel histogram, not one of blocks of pixels.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'caprihistogram.jpg' (16 KB)
Preview of image 'caprihistogram.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
> >
> Maybe it makes sense to try to simulate it with textures/normals
> because real creases can drastically increase mesh size.
Well I think I can at least beat the poly count that including a poser
figure would entail. Let's just say that it is the challenge that
interests me at the moment. I think it should be possible.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here you are.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'c1.jpg' (13 KB)
Download 'c2.jpg' (10 KB)
Download 'c3.jpg' (13 KB)
Preview of image 'c1.jpg'
Preview of image 'c2.jpg'
Preview of image 'c3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gena Obukhov" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3E8E540A.2B539F19@mail.com...
> Here you are.
Heh... the mum looks transparent. You can see the top step through
her body. Am I right, or is it too early in the morning?
~Steve~
>
> Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hughes, B. wrote:
> was expecting to find instead was a bright spot where the top of the dome
> meets the part atop it, since that's where I notice the most slowdown occur.
> Or so it appears to me as I watch the rendering take place.
I think you can improve the renderspeed of the dome part considerably
with a bit of manual bounding. Try adding something like
bounded_by { box { <-60, 0, -593>, <60, 655, 0> } }
to the declarations of Dome_A and Dome_B in the stpaul.inc file.
(Back in '96, when I made the model, I obviously wasn't as aware of the
limitations of auto-bounding, as I am today :)
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is a 3000 x 3720 res version of the figure in its current state.
c & c ?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'fig.jpg' (9 KB)
Preview of image 'fig.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Here is a 3000 x 3720 res version of the figure in its current state.
> c & c ?
It looks great! I think something is wrong with aspect ratio of
this image. I tried to correct it and also played with creases and
head proportions in Photoshop.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'fig.jpg' (10 KB)
Preview of image 'fig.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
