 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
>
> Could you please describe the process? I have been always thinking
> about something like that for faces/figures/sculptures. Is it completely manual
> process?
Yes, it is a manual process and depending on what the base image looks like
can be rather labor intensive. When I tried it a few years ago I started with
a color image of the object I wanted to recreate, converted it to greyscale
and then imported it into the HF program Leveller. Inside Leveller you can
do quite a bit to raise and lower the repective areas that may need extra
attention with a wide variety of tools. After exporting to POV-Ray's 16 bit
HF image format you can then apply the original color image to the HF to give
it that added sense of reality. Leveller now supports export to .OBJ so
UV mapping should also now be possible.
You can see my attempt (about 4 years ago) at HF sculpture on the testimonial
page at the Leveller site -
http://www.daylongraphics.com/products/leveller/user_ex/index.htm
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
> Here is image with assumed_gamma 1
> Should we change any other parameter(s)?
> It looks too dim for me.
For me it's much brighter now.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> For me it's much brighter now.
Yep. When I said 'dim' I meant that there is too high grey
component in all colors. It makes colors a bit dull.
Maybe we have to reduce brightness of the light source.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Here is image with assumed_gamma 1
> Should we change any other parameter(s)?
> It looks too dim for me.
That's precisely what i am talking about all the time. The textures and
lighting need to be adapted to produce the intended results. Changing one
thing (like the gamma correction) will result in a large mess.
The version with the water i posted contains lighting and some provisonal
textures for usage with assumed_gamma 1. Most important things probably
are:
- reducing radiosity brightness (to 1.0, lower could even be better)
- make the sky darker
- change the finishes (scratch any ambient if there is, i have the
impression it is not 0 but maybe it's just the fog)
- change the colors of the objects if necessary
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
> I posted zip file with some images in p.b.s.-f.
> See the thread 'Re: Capriccio - Dome of St. Pauls'
Oh, missed that one. Hmm, not quite the details I had hoped for. I'll
see how far I can get with it, but I am not optimistic.
> I think the image which you posted in this thread
> has more details :)
Found another big one at http://www.milton.com/praha2002/im000163.jpg
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Ib Rasmussen wrote:
>
>
>>I have three different classical figures, that I have used on a church
>>(http://www.ibras.ishoejby.dk/frederik/frederik.htm), that might pass as
>>the three free standing sculptures on top of the triangular front
>>(pediment?), but there is also some figure groups on the side towers,
>>and a number of reliefs, especially the large triangular one
>>(tympanon?), which I wouldn't know what to do with.
>>
>
> You can always try HFs for that. Jim Kress and I have both had pretty good
> success recreating sculpture with HFs. An example can be seen at Jim's site
Impressive, but as a matter of principle, I only do CSG ;)
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I have three different classical figures, that I have used on a church
>> (http://www.ibras.ishoejby.dk/frederik/frederik.htm), that might pass
>> as the three free standing sculptures on top of the triangular front
>
> Sounds good
I just remembered, we are only allowed to use our own objects for this
project, and I can't claim to have made these figures :(
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I removed 'ambient' from all textures (except cathedral facade),
reduced radiosity brightness to 0.6, reduced 'diffuse' to 0.6 and
reduced sky brightness.
You can see the result below. Let's decide which value for
assumed_gamma we should use.
IMHO we should use something from the middle 1.4-1.6 even
though such value is not right from theoretical point of view :)
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'gamma1.jpg' (80 KB)
Download 'gamma2.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'gamma1.jpg'
Preview of image 'gamma2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The only realistic approach would be using assumed_gamma 1,
and modifying the scene to accompensate for that. Colors just
need to be darker, and perhaps some adjusting for the contrast
is needed. The fog could also be adjusted.
The problem with using a different value is that many (at least
I hope so) people use assumed_gamma 1, and base their
color experience on that (at least I do).
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
> I removed 'ambient' from all textures (except cathedral facade),
> reduced radiosity brightness to 0.6, reduced 'diffuse' to 0.6 and
> reduced sky brightness.
> You can see the result below. Let's decide which value for
> assumed_gamma we should use.
> IMHO we should use something from the middle 1.4-1.6 even
> though such value is not right from theoretical point of view :)
>
> Gena.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'v9.jpg' (57 KB)
Preview of image 'v9.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
