 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks good, i only wonder about a few things:
- the bright area behind the column seems a bit too strong to me, it
should be a bit brighter than the area around but not so strong IMO, but i
don't know how to influence this.
- The artificial lights seem quite bright in relation to the sunlight,
although i'm not so sure about that (the second view seems better under
this aspect)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> - the bright area behind the column seems a bit too strong to me, it
> should be a bit brighter than the area around but not so strong IMO, but i
> don't know how to influence this.
Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
this unnatural brightening. Think about it, perfect mirror is diffuse 1
in radiosity sense. assumed_gamma 1.0 would brighten the scene correctly
radiomertrically speaking.
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
0.4 ??? I always used 0.6 ! oups ! need to change this in my last scenes to see
the result... I'll post them again...
David (very interested by this news)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gemelli david wrote:
>
> > Real world concrete is diffuse ~0.4. Diffuse 2 was used here which causes
>
> 0.4 ??? I always used 0.6 ! oups ! need to change this in my last scenes to see
> the result...
That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
> are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
>
doesn't it also depend on the color or do you mean using color rgb 1 ?
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I changed some details in order to make it better than the precedent one...
Diffuse change from 0.6 to 0.4 for the back is not a bad thing...
David
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'metal_07.jpg' (25 KB)
Preview of image 'metal_07.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> >
> > That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
> > are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
> >
>
> doesn't it also depend on the color or do you mean using color rgb 1 ?
Yes. If the color is rgb 0.5 the diffuse should be 0.8.
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A1D4DE9.BBB7C7CC@xlstudio.com>, gemelli david
<d.g### [at] xlstudiocom> wrote:
> 0.4 ??? I always used 0.6 ! oups ! need to change this in my last
> scenes to see the result... I'll post them again...
It would vary quite a bit with the exact kind of concrete, whether it is
wet, how weathered it is, if it is freshly cut or broken, how dirty it
is, whether vehicles with rubber tires have driven on it...you get the
idea, the range definitely covers both 0.4 and 0.6. And the color also
affects the result...halving the color would require doubling the
diffuse.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:15:51 +0200, Kari Kivisalo <kar### [at] kivisalonet>
wrote:
>That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
>are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
Any hint as of the location of this list? I am *very* interested.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> >That 0.4 was from a list describing "typical" reflectances. I bet there
> >are construction companies that do 0.6 concrete :)
>
> Any hint as of the location of this list? I am *very* interested.
I don't remember where this short list was.
specular aluminum 95%,
new snow 74%,
concrete 40%,
vegetation (mean) 25%,
asphalt 7%.
From here you get the full spectral data for materials.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bes/graphics/spectra/
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
