Nr. 4 is definitively not a photo. It stands for waxlike objects. But the
texture is too transparent, so you can see edges through, which is not
possible with real wax.
I think everything can be made in Pov-Ray. If anything, no. 5 can be a
photo.


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

#1: highlights are to perfect, or I'm missing the lamp in
    the reflections... averything else looks real here...
#2: naa... white material is a bit unreal, and the reflecting
    environment of the black sphere doesn't fit here ...
#3: To sharp sphere in contrtast to the "blurry" floor...
#4: again, the highlight on the sphere is talking to
    me: "I'm unreal... I'm traced"
#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...
    The highlights are somehow "real" to me ...
#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 ...
    2nd, there is something with the shadows, but I can't tell what

So, if there's any pic of these one a photo, I'd stick on #5 ...
but I'm sure, you could also trace a pic like this one ...

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3caf13cc@news.povray.org...
> Maybe you refuse to bother because of all these spheres, but they're my
> recent attempts at realistic raytracing. What do you think; is there a
photo
> hiding? What is definitely not photo? Why?
You mean that they aren't all photos ;) ?
the sphere in 3 is obviously not a photo (the sphere looks wrong), but
that's all I can tell.


--
____________________
 RAY

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
> 
> Maybe you refuse to bother because of all these spheres, but they're my
> recent attempts at realistic raytracing. What do you think; is there a photo
> hiding? What is definitely not photo? Why?

1. Not a photo. Sphere material seems unrealistic.

2. Not a photo, but it might be with different material for center and
right sphere. Reflection in left sphere and ground convincing, as is shading.

3. Definitely not a photo. Shadow on white sphere darker than shadow on
gray ground, especially considering only one highlight on sphere!

4. Definitely not a photo. Good texture on ground, but left object seems
blurry somehow. "Halo" effect on inside edge of sphere seems to have no cause.

5. Could be a photo. Extremely convincing.

6. Not a photo. Unsure exactly why, but heavy shading under the blue
objects where they (maybe) should be better lit may contribute to failure.

I would like to say, though, that all in all these are very nice, and
could probably put a lot of other renderers to shame, or at least match
them. Thanks go to everyone who's gone to lengths to play with radiosity
and lighting and show the rest of us how it's done; Kari Kivisalo comes
to mind, but there were many other contributors, including yourself as
we can see here.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3caf13cc@news.povray.org...
> Maybe you refuse to bother because of all these spheres, but they're
my
> recent attempts at realistic raytracing. What do you think; is there a
photo
> hiding? What is definitely not photo? Why?

    Hmm.. Nice, very nice. The dark sphere in number two is very close
to a black pearl, not sure about the two spheres beside it though... The
black pearl needs some lustre and then bingo.

   As for the rest? I'll stick my neck out and say all .pov apart from #
6.

   Just hope I'm right...  ;)

      Nice.

    ~Steve~




>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

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