 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
after my 30000-sphere parse ended in quite
a dumb way, I did a fast preview with only
3000 spheres ...
Also I used a cylindric camera which makes
is (hopefully) more interesting ...
Please tell me, if it's better to use more
or less focal blur or if the F-P should be
more near or more far ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'simpleBackground.jpg' (26 KB)
Preview of image 'simpleBackground.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Much more interesting camera style now! Looks great when the horizon
"bends".
I'd say the spheres should be larger and closer, and fewer in the horizon or
maybe place the more evenly around, not only at the center of the image?
Focal blur looks great, what settings do you use?
--
_.-=^=-._.-=[ Peter ]=-._.-=^=-._
_.-=[ http://hertel.no/peter ]=-._
> after my 30000-sphere parse ended in quite
> a dumb way, I did a fast preview with only
> 3000 spheres ...
> Also I used a cylindric camera which makes
> is (hopefully) more interesting ...
>
> Please tell me, if it's better to use more
> or less focal blur or if the F-P should be
> more near or more far ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice, but really needs the other 27K spheres. Having black space or a
starfield above the sphere might look better than blue.
This would mess up your radiosity, BUT I have found a trick. no_image
objects still affect radiosity.
-Shay
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzer net> wrote in message
news:3cbdd75a@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
> Nice, but really needs the other 27K spheres. Having black space or a
> starfield above the sphere might look better than blue.
Thanks ... I'm working on it ...
> This would mess up your radiosity, BUT I have found a trick. no_image
> objects still affect radiosity.
And if I tell you now, that I don't
use any radiosity? But the point is
,that the spheres would loose their
blueish reflection ... moreover , I
don't like this kind of cheating in
images... but thats only my taste.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" wrote:
> Nice, but really needs the other 27K spheres. Having black space or a
> starfield above the sphere might look better than blue.
>
> This would mess up your radiosity, BUT I have found a trick. no_image
> objects still affect radiosity.
That's not so correct. I haven't installed neither beta 16 or RC1 yet, but I'm quite
sure no_image objects do not affect radiosity.
Of course things could have changed in the last mentioned betas, but I somehow doubt
it.
That said, I would prefer a no_radiosity flag distinct from no_image.
--
Jonathan.
Home: http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JRG <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message news:3cbdfa44@news.povray.org...
> but I'm quite
> sure no_image objects do not affect radiosity.
Seemed to work last time I tried it. I will test it again sometime.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
