 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] iname com>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> Maybe I haven't seen enough clay, but I would have to dissagree
> with the others about this being so "photorealistic".
I'm not sure what you mean.
I agree that the image as a whole is not photorealistic because of the
simple lighting.
But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?
I would think that the image would become rather photorealistic if the
lighting was improved using radiosity, but maybe the model/texture needs
some improvements too?
> The model itself, on the other hand, is very interesting.
Thanks!
> I like the details on the tail. The rounded teeth help it look
> less menacing, which is nice.
Well, it's supposed to look menacing, not cute...
> 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.
Does the clayman Nick exist in reality too, or is he trapped inside the
computer?
> I just look at him and think "Aren't you cute? Yes, you are.
> Yes, you are, you little clay thingy...". 8-)
I look at the piranha and think "Aren't you absentminded? Yes you are. Your
eyes are looking in different directions and I can literally see there's
noting inside your head...".
Then I wave my hand just in front of it and it doesn't react.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?
The normals and lighting.
> Well, it's supposed to look menacing, not cute...
It's still menacing, but less-so... :)
> Does the clayman Nick exist in reality too, or is he trapped inside the
> computer?
He really is! :)
> Then I wave my hand just in front of it and it doesn't react.
:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> > But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?
>
> The normals and lighting.
Do you mean that:
A) Because of the poor lighting the normals look fake, but when radiosity is
used, the normals will probably look fine.
B) The normals look fake no matter the lighting. The normals need to be
improved themselves.
If B, how could the normals be improved?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A) Because of the poor lighting the normals look fake, but when radiosity
is
> used, the normals will probably look fine.
Radiosity will definitely help.
> If B, how could the normals be improved?
I really don't know. Like I said, maybe I haven't worked with enough clay,
but it looks awfully dirty. And I feel that we should be seeing some true
displacement, not just fake normals. Other than that, just relax... and send
me the source, already! I've been playing with radiosity all day waiting for
it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a9d7b0e@news.povray.org>, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg>
wrote:
> And I feel that we should be seeing some true displacement, not just
> fake normals.
This should be possible by using it as a blob pattern in a pigment
isosurface function, and displacing the isosurface.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
