yooper schrieb in Nachricht <3aa2638f@news.povray.org>...
>Very nice pic . . . am inspired to contunue to find uses for that Fib
>pattern.

Thank you. That Fib Pattern is very good for this scene cause it gives it a
"real world" touch, I think. You won't expect a place be paved in rows and
collums and this pattern breaks the straigth lines to. That adds much to the
realism IMO.

>I really like all of your stone textures, esp the tiles on the roof of the
>well.

I'll post a poorly documented code snipped for the roof parts later this
day. It's basicaly a iso box+cylinder to which I added a agate pigemt
function. The code is not at all optimal (I intersected the whole roof part
with a box to trimm it).

>And I wanted to ask you where you got those birds and if that code is
>available somewhere.
>
Let me see, there is a link from Gilles Trans "The making of the Wet-Bird",
as Geoff Wedig told me. Its
http://www.chez.com/jrlivenais/vdesprit/gift/gift_eng.htm. It's a bit
difficult to texture it (I still could not figure out how to uv-map it, so
that I can rotate the bird), but it's no imposible task. If you want the
used image_map and my version of the bird, just ask.

>Now that you have it in a final version . . . I have some suggestions :)
>hehe
>not much really . . . just noticed that you use the same brick pattern in
>each
>of the brick portions . . . and thought that in future versions you might
>want
>to alter the color pattern so they don't end up looking identical.

Hrmph - so finaly someone did notice it :-) It would not be that difficult
to change that (I would just have to take a differend part of the brick
pattern), but as this whole iso-brick-patten got quite complicate I just
could not convince me that it's neccessary :-)

>That's it tho . . . a very pleasing scene . . . feels nice and warm . . .
>can almost
>feel the sun hitting me on the back . . .


Don't know how the weather is at your place, but we have snow here in the
middle of Germany - some sun on the back would be nice ...

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo advised me once to set assumed_gamma always to 1.0 and set the
display_gamma to the correct value. He said, those who know what to do can
adjust there viewer accordingly (I should have mentioned that I'm using
assumed_gamma 1.0, though). As I know nobody who seems to understand more of
this topic, I'll stick to his advice.

Marc-Hendrik
------
Yup . . . that's the same thing Alf told me in my Fib Beads thread and I've
read
up on it and have it set up correctly now.  And so . . . any scene rendered
with
that assumed_gamma set to 1.0 should then work everywhere.
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

> I'll post a poorly documented code snipped for the roof parts later this
> day.

Tanks . . .

> Let me see, there is a link from Gilles Trans "The making of the
Wet-Bird",
> as Geoff Wedig told me. Its
> http://www.chez.com/jrlivenais/vdesprit/gift/gift_eng.htm. It's a bit
> difficult to texture it (I still could not figure out how to uv-map it, so
> that I can rotate the bird), but it's no imposible task. If you want the
> used image_map and my version of the bird, just ask.

I will go get it and play with it for a while . . . will get back to you if
I
can't make any progress with it.

> Don't know how the weather is at your place, but we have snow here in the
> middle of Germany - some sun on the back would be nice ...

> Marc-Hendrik

just now getting some sun and a few days of 50F weather here . . .
still snow on the ground but it's going fast. Spring is in the air. . .
feels great.
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

It looks more complete, but I kinda liked the higher color temp of the old
one, looked like it was in a colder climate. Great work, the detail is
amazing!

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:

> OK, the brighter version is finished. Have a look at
> http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg
> It's about 140 kb. Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
> something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.

I wasn't expecting it to very much, but the change really does help...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>
> Kari Kivisalo advised me once to set assumed_gamma always to 1.0 and set the
> display_gamma to the correct value. He said, those who know what to do can
> adjust there viewer accordingly (I should have mentioned that I'm using
> assumed_gamma 1.0, though). As I know nobody who seems to understand more of
> this topic, I'll stick to his advice.

The above setting will produce correct image on that particular monitor.
Since your display gamma is 1.6 the image will appear darker on most
monitors. This is not a pov specific issue. Every image you edit on your
system will look too dark to others. If you want to give a hint how the
image should look just mention it's gamma 1.6. Or just apply additional
2.2/1.6 = 1.37 correction in an image editor before publishing to get
a more standard (sRGB) brightness distribution. Remember that most people
don't bother adjusting anything for a single picture so it's better to
follow the standard when publishing.

If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.


______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo                                  http://www.kivisalo.net

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:

> If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
> standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.

I recently viewed my website on one of the macs in the media center at school.
Aah! I was blinded! I hope I don't have radiation poisoning now.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Gamma correction isn't a problem if you store your files in PNG format. It
stores gamma information with the image information.

D.J.

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3AA30A2E.3BE3200C@faricy.net...
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> > If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
> > standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.
>
> I recently viewed my website on one of the macs in the media center at
school.
> Aah! I was blinded! I hope I don't have radiation poisoning now.
>
> --
> David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
>

Post a reply to this message

A 1024x768 version of the scene is now available at
http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnen1024x768.jpg.
(219k)

I was myself surprised how much details are visible on this bigger version.
I really love the way, POV works and that you are able to make as large
pictures as you want out of one sourcecode.

Marc-Hendrik




Marc-Hendrik Bremer schrieb in Nachricht <3aa23e22@news.povray.org>...
>
>OK, the brighter version is finished. Have a look at
>http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg
>It's about 140 kb. Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
>something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.
>
>Marc-Hendrik
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Really? That would be great! (But Jpg is of course smaller in most cases.)

Marc-Hendrik

D.J. Brown schrieb in Nachricht <3aa37c27$1@news.povray.org>...
>Gamma correction isn't a problem if you store your files in PNG format. It
>stores gamma information with the image information.
>
>D.J.

Post a reply to this message