 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting how others are saying #5 could be a photo, I'd have to choose
that one too. Maybe it's the little top central bumps; or lack of other
textures, which can be scrutinized more readily were they there. Regardless
of what someone else said about #4's semi-transparency it draws my attention
most as being realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you Ari-Matti for your comments! I am encouraged by all the replies I
got from different people. Also your useful analyse.
You ask about the black sphere in #2. It mainly consists of blurred
reflection and depends very much on the enviroment, as you can imagine. The
enviroment is a HDR light probe (High Dynamic Range image). Radiosity and 3
dim area_lights is used to illuminate the scene. Rendertime: 5 minutes on my
1 ghz AMD. Rendered with ML-POV.
If you want to try this yourself, I attached the .pov file, but you'll also
need these links:
http://martial.rameaux.free.fr/mael/MLPov.html
http://www.debevec.org/%7Edebevec/Probes/
Good luck!
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'HDR_test1.pov.txt' (3 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Tek, thanks for your comments! No, they are not all renders. There is one
photo. :o) I'll reviel which one a bit later.
> 3. The ball looks like it's been composited onto
> the backdrop. I think maybe the shadow needs
> to be darker.
You're right. I clearly see what's wrong now. Well, it's my first experiment
with 17 randomly placed area_lights (nearly random) with random colors.
Another strong area_light gives the most visible shadow. No radiosity. I was
inspired by John Bradshaw's post, and I think the method can be improved.
John's post:
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/22572/
> 6. There's radiosity artefacts at the base of the shiny
> thing. Also it has a bit of that disconnected feel
> that was in 3.
It's good you mention this. I wasn't aware of it.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Nobert, and thanks for your reply! I knew that you wouldn't buy #4 but I
didn't realize it was too transparant. It's my first attempt for subsurface
scattering. I've seen better results in other raytracers but I still have to
learn.. Unfortunately rendertime jumps up.. It took some hours to render
this image because of media.
> I think everything can be made in Pov-Ray.
> If anything, no. 5 can be a photo.
Well, you've done amazing things!
Thanks for your vote. Seems like a good bet.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Very very nice photorealistic work.
Thank you!
I'm glad you're not too sure. ;o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello Jan and thanks for your comments!
> #2: naa... white material is a bit unreal, and the
> reflecting environment of the black sphere doesn't fit
I'm surprised a little you think the black sphere looks wrong, since it
merely reflects the enviroment. But the white material is much more "dull"
and might be causing the confusion, and the black sphere doesn't really look
metallic (well some people here thinks it's a pearl).
> #5: dunno ... can't find a detail, where I would be 100%
> sure, that it is a traced one. The shadows are very
> slightly blurred, so it would be a very small arealight,
> and, it must be at a huge distance, as the shadows are
> nearly parallel... This would be very hard in a studio,
> (and I see no other reflections), but who knows...
Who knows, but you're right: The lightsource is at a huge distance.
Interesting for me that you mention the parrellel shadows because I didn't
notice this.
> #6: The Ref-Map of the "thing" doesn't fit, looks somehow
> the same as in #2, and is missing in the floor.
> IMHO, If you have the objects mirroring in the floor,
> you also have the sky there ...
Hmm, seems like a good point. But the enviroment ought to give correct
reflections, as it's made the same way as picture #2... The ground is
reflective too, but maybe not enough..
The only difference between #6 and #2 is that I added a "vignette" effect -
like a camera lens - that makes the image brighter in the middle. That
should give a better impression of a photo, though it's not a real-life
effect.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You mean that they aren't all photos ;) ?
Hehe, thanks Ray, that's a positive comment.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Xplo!
Thank you for the kind and useful comments! I'm going to reviel where the
photo is now: It's NUMBER FIVE as
almost everyone suspected, but apparently it was not too obvious.. It shows
that many "small" things contribute to realism and POV-Ray is surely on the
right track.
> 1. Not a photo. Sphere material seems unrealistic.
You're right. The blurred reflection trick in POV3.5 has some limits. I
haven't been able to make a good bumpy looking normal PLUS blur.. So here I
tried to have a small granite pattern, with a large blur, by mixing
functions {}.. Rendertime was a BEAST! About 14 hours on my 1 ghz AMD, but
the major slowdown happened when reflection ping-pong's between the 2
spheres.. I reduced the max_trace_level to 3 which gave a good speed-up, but
still...
> 5. Could be a photo. Extremely convincing.
Ahh, yes.. I shot this photo today from my window.. A piece of paper and two
simple objects on top.. It seems like there is still a way to go in POV-Ray.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Steve and thanks for your comment!
> The dark sphere in number two is very close to a
> black pearl ....... needs some lustre and then bingo.
I'll think about the lustre (just looked up the word in my dictionary)..
hmm..
> As for the rest? I'll stick my neck out and say all
> .pov apart from #6. Just hope I'm right... ;)
eehhh.. The photo is number 5, but it's interesting that it was not too
obvious.. I conclude that although there is still headway to make, our
favourite raytracer is doing good.. Maybe it would be a good idea to make
some full setups for realistic light with a set of good textures.. Though
there is already a good include file for radiosity settings.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Bob,
> Regardless of what someone else said about #4's semi-transparency
> it draws my attention most as being realistic.
You're the only one who gives so much credit for #4 ... thanks! It's also
the only picture that features subsurface scattering and it's still not seen
so often in CG... There is still headway to make, however.. :o)
Your guess for #5 as the photo is correct!
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
