bob h wrote:

> First glance of this looks like a photograph, always did really.

  Thanks, I think this is my first real photorealistic attempt.
 
> The pens in the cup might be better if more random and leaning against the
> side in a more obvious way, even if you didn't ask for comments on those
> kinds of things.

  Yes, the pens are really poorly placed at the moment. :(

> The small normals seem to cause a little too much noise IMHO, as can be
> seen
> on the foreground desk drawers.  Maybe averaging those with another to
> blend
> them out some could be an improvement?  You say you are not finished with
> the texturing though.

  You're right, but I can't decide if it is more slow to use realistic 
normals with focal blur, or averaged textures with heavy aa. When almost 
all the textures are blurred, it is hard to tell... I will continue testing.

> Far as radiosity and lighting goes I can only say that it looks very good.

  Thanks, that was the primary purpouse of the scene: to test a light 
macro. It seems that it works convincently. Now it's time to clean the 
macro, and create a nice and simple test code to show it...
  
-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

3 Comments:

1) What focal blur?

2) I'd make the black cushion of the chair on the right a bit bigger. I
don't like the way the metal cuts through it. Seems flimsy.

3) That's a pretty long render time! Good luck with the final. :)

Post a reply to this message

Very good, I'm impressed. I just can't do interior scenes!

Mick


"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:3c246b4d@news.povray.org...
> Hi!
>
>   I wanted to know how slow this scene will be, with all the "hard"
> features turned on:
>
>   + Blurred reflections, with the use of very fine normals and focal_blur
>   (little aperture, 32 samples, variance 0).
>
>   + Radiosity data reused from a "dummy" version of the same scene, with
>   1/3 resolution, no area_lights, no normals and plain colors. This faked
>   version uses the same geometry, but more intense lights to add some
>   brigthness to the final scene.
>
>   + 18 big area_lights
>
>   Render time was about 30h, on AMD 1.2Ghz. Fortunatelly, I think adding
> more objects and details for the final render will not slow down it much
> more... will see.
>
>   Comments/criticism about the lighting and blurred reflections are
welcome
> (most of the modelling and texturing is still "temporary").
>
> --
> Jaime Vives Piqueres
>
> La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
> http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Modelling:
as usual everything looks very well modelled (ok except the phone, which
looks a bit too much like a superellipsoid). But I somehow feel the lack of
wires and cables everywhere. It would add so much to the realism. And where
is everybody at 8:25? :)

Texturing:
the wood looks very good IMO. I find the floor excellent too (I love how the
light bulbs reflect on it).
The only thing I would complain of is that some metallic textures look a bit
too *white*.

Lighting:
absolutely great! Absolutely photorealistic. The best thing here (and the
most important one).

Render time:
30 h for such a scene sounds really fast.

--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

*DROOL*

Psst...have POV running on your rendered computer ;)
-- 
Tim Cook
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Lighting looks pretty good.  Even with the temporary textures and models
it almost looks real, though I can see apots where I think you'll try to
make improvements...

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

Post a reply to this message

Tony[B] wrote:

> 3 Comments:
> 
> 1) What focal blur?

  Ah! That's it! It must be imperceptible. It is acting here like aa, but 
softer, altought it need many samples... :(

> 2) I'd make the black cushion of the chair on the right a bit bigger. I
> don't like the way the metal cuts through it. Seems flimsy.

  Yes, bad quick-modelling: must be corrected.
 
> 3) That's a pretty long render time! Good luck with the final. :)

  :( Will see..

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

JRG wrote:

> Modelling:
> as usual everything looks very well modelled (ok except the phone, which
> looks a bit too much like a superellipsoid). But I somehow feel the lack
> of wires and cables everywhere. It would add so much to the realism. And
> where is everybody at 8:25? :)

  Cables are the next thing to add. And, FYI, it is 8:25 P.M.! All workers 
are at home, but someone left the lights turned on. I'm planning some funny 
storytelling here... :)
 
> Texturing:
> The only thing I would complain of is that some metallic textures look a
> bit too *white*.

  Yes, I used a dummy texture too clear. Corrected for the next WIP.

  Thanks!
 
-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Well this discussion is completely over my head, but looks good anyway!
Wish MY office was so neat. . .


-Dayv
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:3c24b720@news.povray.org...
> Hi Hugo:
>
> > I am very impressed by this! Both the lighting and modelling. There are
> > many well defined objects. I suppose you've made them over the
years..Your
> > homepage has many objects too.. great stuff!  :o)  But 30 hours
rendertime
> > is scaring, a little..
>
>   Thanks! Yes, most of the objects are "stock" objects, some other are
> still placeholders. And 30h is very fast, really. Without saved radiosity
> data it would take at least a 50% more. At first, it was even more slow
> because I've put the lights inside CSG diference objects. Now, with
unions,
> it renders much faster (I must remember this).
>
> > Will you explain the lighting technique for us, once
> > you are satisfied with it?
>
>   Yes, it is an include file with a very short macro and some constants.
It
> is mostly based on using very strong intensities and very short
> attenuation.  Not a try to get something "physically correct", but
> arbitrarily based on real color and lumens data to mantain a realistic
> relation between diferent lights in the same scene. Basically, you call
the
> macro this way:
>
>   lamplight(COLOR_INCANDESCENT,LUMENS_INCANDESCENT_60W)
>
>   or
>
>   lamplight(COLOR_FLUOR_UNIVERSAL_WHITE,LUMENS_FLUOR_18W)
>
>   and it returns a light_source properly adjusted, taking into account two
> global constants previously defined: REFERENCE_WHITE and
> MAXIMUM_LUMENS_ALLOWED. It's up to you to build the light container (bulb,
> lamp, etc...).
>
>   Pretty simple in code, but I expended some months understanding some
> concepts about light. I will show it soon...
>
> > Did you find out why radiosity artifacts were
> > gone when using a saved rad file?
>
>   Oh! Yes... I followed the advice from Kari of using this setup for the
> load scene:
>
>   radiosity{
>     pretrace_start 1 pretrace_end 1
>     always_sample off
>     load "rad_file"
>   }
>
>   But as this is using default error bound, wich was greater than the one
I
> used for the saved data, the final render "smoothed" the artifacts. Seems
> that when loading rad data error_bound is taken into account. For ideal
> results with high quality settings you should use also the same error
bound
> as in the "dummy" render. But it also helps to get "quick-but-clean"
> results with radiosity.
>
> > Does it really work to use a rad file
> > taken from a lower-resolution image?
>
>   I tried it with the "official" cornell-box scene done by Kari (very
> good!), and it shows very similar results with saved data from a previous
> render at 1/3 resolution. Substracting the original image from the
"tricky"
> one shows an almost black image (I had to increase brightness to see the
> diferenced zones). Of course, the original image is better, much more
> smooth, but this is still a great trick for lazy people like me (or
you...;)
>
>   Bye!
>
> --
> Jaime Vives Piqueres
>
> La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
> http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

On a floor like that I bet you could go really fast on a 
wheeley chair. 

--
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

 10:14am  up 78 days,  2:01,  2 users,  load average: 1.06, 1.06, 1.01

Post a reply to this message