 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi there,
>
> I found this fern pic on the net. If one would make a POV scene like this
> everyone (including myself) would say that it looks too much like plastic
> *lol*
> In fact this is a pic of a real fern. No fake :-)
>
> Nature is fun, isn't it?
> regards
> SY
>
> PS: sorry for posting a NONraytraced pic...
>
I have some suggestions for you:
Add more light sources to your room (or even an area light)
Try to straighten the leaves they are little bit too curved for now
Add some more texture to leaves to look not so plastic (for example with
sand-paper algorithm)
wider camera angle would be nice
the center of the leaves(i don't know correct word for this one) is too
dark, try to add some green pigment at those
the background texture (at upper left corner) is quite ugly, put a new
wallpaper =)
and I would like to see it if there were some media fog effect (f.e.
with smoking inside algorithm)
Otherwise quite nice although it isn't really raytraced, but that ray
capture method looks almost as good=)
and sorry about my bad english (and the fact that clock is here 5 am doesn't
make it any better)
Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I have some suggestions for you:
[...]
> and sorry about my bad english (and the fact that clock is here 5 am
doesn't
> make it any better)
Thanks Matti for your tips. I know that it was 5am, but you should get some
more sleep... as mentioned in the subject AND text this is a photography of
a real, physical, touchable, materialistic fern. Nothing of the stuff we
create in our computer's memories.... a real thing like the tons of stuff as
outside of your room. ;-)
good morning, BTW.
But in general, your tips are all right and correct. Strange that nature
didn't care about ;-))
regards
SY
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > I found this fern pic on the net. If one would make a POV scene like
this
> > everyone (including myself) would say that it looks too much like
plastic
>
> Because the lighting sucks: Just one strong lightsource a bit above the
> camera{} + high quality radiosity but this doesn't help much in this
> case.
*ggg*
another one.
The "one strong lightsource" is also called "the sun". And high quality
radiosity is correct for shure, as nature reflects billions of light rays
each millisecond :-)
Maybe you missed both, the text and the subject. As mentioned this is a
photography. A real fern. Growing (if watered more than mine POV-generated
ones). But anyway, you are very right with your analysis!
regards
SY
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Thanks Matti for your tips. I know that it was 5am, but you should get some
> more sleep... as mentioned in the subject AND text this is a photography of
> a real, physical, touchable, materialistic fern. Nothing of the stuff we
> create in our computer's memories.... a real thing like the tons of stuff as
> outside of your room. ;-)
>
> good morning, BTW.
>
> But in general, your tips are all right and correct. Strange that nature
> didn't care about ;-))
Hmm. I knew that the picture was real, I meant that you should take care of
those things, add more light sources to physical location where that fern is and
green paint (pigment) on leaves etc. But anyway I was quite tired then.I just
couldn't get any sleep.
Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c640b90$1@news.povray.org>, sch### [at] surfeu at says...
> The "one strong lightsource" is also called "the sun".
No. That picture was (very probably) taken with a flash, and thats why it
looks so plastic-like: because of light directly from the front.
Not only in renders a good lighting is important, its the same in RL
photography...
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi there,
>
> I found this fern pic on the net. If one would make a POV scene like this
> everyone (including myself) would say that it looks too much like plastic
> *lol*
> In fact this is a pic of a real fern. No fake :-)
>
> Nature is fun, isn't it?
> regards
> SY
>
> PS: sorry for posting a NONraytraced pic...
Ich glaub nicht jeder hat diesen Text gelesen...
I thought, a few people didn't read this text...
Stefan
--
www.weinzierl-stefan.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ich glaub nicht jeder hat diesen Text gelesen...
Exakt. Was mich doch etwas wundert. Kommentare ohne vorher zu lesen?
> I thought, a few people didn't read this text...
Indeed, and I wonder why? Commenting without reading?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No. That picture was (very probably) taken with a flash, and thats why it
> looks so plastic-like: because of light directly from the front.
>
> Not only in renders a good lighting is important, its the same in RL
> photography...
Yep. But tuning radiosity isn't easy for taking photos :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>I thought, a few people didn't read this text...
>>
> Indeed, and I wonder why? Commenting without reading?
It's just like Playboy: everybody says they read it for the articles,
but all they do is look at the pictures ;-)
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's just like Playboy: everybody says they read it for the articles,
> but all they do is look at the pictures ;-)
*ROTFL*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
