 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Dugan wrote
> I noticed that the light color seems different in the photo. The photo's
> "white cylinder" seems almost an ecru color and the ground is a warmer
tone.
> The povray seems a little more "bluish"
Yes.. And, as you can see in my new version, I tried to adjust this but I
think the photo actually are too much off white, because the cameras
automatic white-balance is easy to fool.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sebastian wrote:
> I like the ground, it looks like a wall texture in a building,
> could you post it?
Ops, it was supposed to look like paper, so I improved this in my new
version. But here is the old texture - it's very simple so maybe you will
make it more complex for a wall.
#declare Ground_Texture=texture {
pigment { bumps pigment_map { [ 0 rgb .9 ] [ 1 rgb 1.1 ] }
turbulence .3 scale 1.5 }
finish { ambient 0 brilliance 1.4 specular .3 roughness .08 }
normal { granite .06 scale .39 }
}
> Nice, a bit fine tuning and I couldn't say which one is real
Do you think my new version still looks CG ? :o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The pictures are not an exact match, but I think that you have achieved
photo-realism with your render.
-Shay
Hugo <hua### [at] post3 teledk> wrote in message news:3cb42376@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The pictures are not an exact match, but I think that you have achieved
> photo-realism with your render.
Thanks! That was my goal. Now I wonder if this setup can be reused, and I'm
thinking about what I have learned from this experiment.
There's something with the white tube-head: Reflections are stronger than
the photo, but if I reduce them, the sides of the tube-head becomes too dark
because they also light up due to reflections.. But I can't use a higher
ambient value because ambient = 0.. So it needs to catch more diffuse light
from radiosity.. But if I raise brightness of radiosity, the shadows will
brighten too, and that's not going to look like the photo.. So what's really
going on in reality here, I don't know..
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message news:3cb44a0d@news.povray.org...
>
> There's something with the white tube-head: Reflections are stronger than
> the photo, but if I reduce them, the sides of the tube-head becomes too
dark
> because they also light up due to reflections.. But I can't use a higher
> ambient value because ambient = 0.. So it needs to catch more diffuse
light
> from radiosity.. But if I raise brightness of radiosity, the shadows will
> brighten too, and that's not going to look like the photo.. So what's
really
> going on in reality here, I don't know..
>
Have you tried blurred reflection? I think that this is present in the
photo.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Have you tried blurred reflection? I think that this is present in the
> photo.
I use blurred reflection on both objects, adjusted to fit the photo.
Regarding the reflection contrast, blurring has no influence. But I tried to
set reflection_exponent below 1 because I imagined this would reduce
contrast but it merely seems to darken the reflection.
Further suggestions will be appriciated. :o)
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Since the object is white, I wonder if using the metallic keyword in the
reflection block would help. Increasing the diffuse would lighten the
reflection, but perhaps cause worse problems.
-Shay
Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3cb452c8$1@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Very good! The red color seems "tood red", and a bit more reflectant.
Yes, if you want realistic colours do not use full rgb values. A while back
when I was looking at information about light and colour, it mentions that
we do not actually experience colours represented by these rgb values. Have
a read here http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/specrend/
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
> I just didn't use subsurface scattering because this kind of plastic
> is "hard" and does not seem to produce any visible scattering...
You should have used :-). At least I see subsurface scattering on the
photo.
--
/"\ | iki.
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | fi/
X Against HTML Mail | zds
/ \
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Me too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
