 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
compression artifacts of your numeric camera on the white cylinder. Can you
Mathieu (france)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nouveau-2.jpg' (21 KB)
Preview of image 'nouveau-2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> to look for the differences ? It will be nice...
>
> Mathieu (france)
I had the same idea today.. It's worth to try sometime this week. ;o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I could write everything I know about lighting and texture on a match book
cover, but to my untrained eye, they all look pretty convincing except for
3. I think that the banding on the shadows in pic 4 gives away more than
does the material. 2 is the most realistic of the renders, but I think that
1 could surpass it with a slight focal blur to hide the regularity of the
patterns.
-Shay
Hugo <hua### [at] post3 teledk> wrote in message news:3caf13cc@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Shay, thanks!
> I think that 1 could surpass it with a slight focal blur to
> hide the regularity of the patterns.
Huh, hmm.. Well all these renders actually have very similar focal blur, and
I don't see a regularity in the pattern of picture 1 ?
But it's interesting to note the big difference in render time for these
pictures.. The real beast was number 1 because of the blurred reflection
(ping pong between the spheres).. The rest renders very quickly, except
number 4 with subsurface scattering.. But this tells me I should probably
leave some things to the future, with faster computers, and concentrate on
radiosity now, since that gives great images, well unless you need
transparant or blurred materials up front.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3cb1fd0f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Huh, hmm.. Well all these renders actually have very similar focal blur,
and
> I don't see a regularity in the pattern of picture 1 ?
>
Maybe it's just me, but the textures in #1 look mathematical. It might just
be the strength of the textures in #1 as compared to the others that gives
this appearance.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
