"Margus Ramst" wrote:
> Whoa, I had to look twice to make sure you weren't BS-ing
> us with a photo - in fact I'm still a bit suspicious :)

Any particular thing that gives away that it isn't a photo?

> This looks like an ideal subject for radiosity lighting.

I thought so myself.

> I like the camera angle as it is, the viewpoint gives the
> fish a slightly maniacal air...

Yes, that's intentional. :)

> Not sure what the setting should be, perhaps none is needed.

Yeah, I have no plans of creating a setting...

Thanks for the feedback!

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9abd33@news.povray.org>, run### [at] inamecom says...
> Any particular thing that gives away that it isn't a photo?
The perfecly sharp shadows. -> Use area lights and/or radiosity.

Lutz-Peter

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote:
> 
> Any particular thing that gives away that it isn't a photo?
> 

As Lutz-Peter said, mostly the sharp shadows; also the way the texture is
lost in the shadow (e.g. inside the mouth). If you get the radiosity
lighting right, there should be very few obvious giveaways. The modelling
itself is all but ideal.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt

Post a reply to this message

Hello Rune.

Like several others, I wondered for a moment whether I was looking at a
photo of the clay model.

What gave it away to me way the sharp shadows, and the lack of a background,
so in my humble opinion I'd suggest that is where the work is needed for a
phot-realistic effect. Area-lighting and a background - perhaps place it on
a pile of paper as though it's being used as a paper-weight.

I don't think you need to do anything to the model itself - I'd call it
photo-realistic already.

I was going to ask how you'd done it, I didn't think it could have been just
blobs and a surface normal, but your previous replies have confirmed that
this is the case.

A brilliant piece of work from a master of blobs.

--
Duncan Gray
(warning: may contain traces of nut)

Post a reply to this message

needs radiosity :)

--
Dan D.

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" wrote:
> Very realistic, i would really try radiosity lighting.

Thank you, I will try out radiosity.

> Maybe put it right in front of a goldfish bowl... :-)

Nah, I don't think those would fit well together...

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

"Duncan Gray" wrote:
> What gave it away to me way the sharp shadows and the lack
> of a background, so in my humble opinion I'd suggest that
> is where the work is needed for a phot-realistic effect.

I will try out radiosity. As for a background I'm not sure. I personally
like the simple white plane, and photographs can also be made to look that
way, so I don't think it's required to obtain photo-realism.

> I was going to ask how you'd done it, I didn't think it
> could have been just blobs and a surface normal, but your
> previous replies have confirmed that this is the case.

Yes.

> A brilliant piece of work from a master of blobs.

Well, this is my most complicated blob so far; it's not like I have a lot of
experience with it. I think H.E. Day is more worthy of the title... But
thank you anyway! :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9abd30@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> I will try to improve the lightning to take the realism a bit further.

Lightning? I didn't see any lightning...well, not in your image. We've 
had some pretty odd weather though...
;-)

-- 
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

Maybe I haven't seen enough clay, but I would have to dissagree with the
others about this being so "photorealistic". It looks like 3D to me, plain
and simple. You can see it in the missing normals in the shadow, and the
sharp shadows. I did not do a double-take, like most people here claim they
did. Sorry. :) Again, I think this is missing some radiosity and/or
area_lights. But I'm sure someone will help you with that. ;)

The model itself, on the other hand, is very interesting. I like the details
on the tail. The rounded teeth help it look less menacing, which is nice. I
kind of understand how you feel about it. I have little Nick which is still
around here somewhere. He's very dear to my heart. I just look at him and
think "Aren't you cute? Yes, you are. Yes, you are, you little clay
thingy...". 8-)

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>
> > I will try to improve the lightning to take the realism a
> > bit further.
>
> Lightning? I didn't see any lightning...well, not in your image.

Oh I see - I thought lighting and lightning were spelled the same way, but
they're not!

Lightning lighting lightning lighting lightning lighting.

I feel enlightninged now!

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message