Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
better looking hi res version go here:

http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/Temp/kitchen_big.jpg

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'photorealistic kitchen.jpg' (89 KB)

Preview of image 'photorealistic kitchen.jpg'

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
> better looking hi res version go here:

Wow ... a lot of work has gone into this image, that is for sure. Just
one comment though: It's way too clean. ;-)

j/k

I've just done the dishes, and I tell you - my sink does not look like
that, not even just after cleaning the dishes. ;-)

Cheers,

-- 
Børge Berg-Olsen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  +47 90 62 71 78          DoD#2101, DoDRT#017, NIC#015, PJ#006, OGM#007
  azo### [at] dodno, Ducati M600, Clementine  Ubesudlet: Aldri eid en J&%#PS.

Post a reply to this message

A wee observation - the areas light fading shadow edges part (can't remember
what to call them) look a bit grainy, I'd increase the number of point in
your area lights.  Yes this will probally increase render time by quite a
bit but if I'd put this many hours of my time into an image (you must have
put alot in, the detail is amazing) I'd want ot put the CPU time in to match
:).

Also the surface of the cooker looks too bright to me, too much glare off
the white.

And if you happen to be a perfectionist; the neck of the wine bottle is too
short and thin.

But great picture.  :-)


"Thomas Lake" <tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote in message
news:3cdec7a7@news.povray.org...
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
> better looking hi res version go here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/Temp/kitchen_big.jpg
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
> Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Amazing! Who's living there?

Thomas Lake wrote:

> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
> better looking hi res version go here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/Temp/kitchen_big.jpg
>

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Very good modelling, very realistic. You'll need to increase the
anti-aliasing... maybe use the focal blur method, to reduce moire and stuff.

Lots of detail and realistic lighting though. Very nice.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> Wow

Thanks!

>... a lot of work has gone into this image, that is for sure. Just
> one comment though: It's way too clean. ;-)

Yes actually I am thinking of adding more stuff.

Post a reply to this message

> A wee observation - the areas light fading shadow edges part (can't
remember
> what to call them)

Umbra?

>look a bit grainy, I'd increase the number of point in
> your area lights.  Yes this will probally increase render time by quite a
> bit but if I'd put this many hours of my time into an image (you must have
> put alot in, the detail is amazing) I'd want ot put the CPU time in to
match
> :).

I did some tests before rendering this image to see the effect of changing
the number of psuedo lights in the area lights. I thought at the time that 4
would prove a nice balance. I actually don't mind some of the grainyness
because it gives the scene more of a "dirty" look. Sometimes when rendering
I think people make the mistake of making things look too perfect that is
too smooth. However there is more grainyness around the candle than I would
have liked to I might change that.

> Also the surface of the cooker looks too bright to me, too much glare off
> the white.

I'm going to practice some artistic license here, yes it is brighter than it
would be in reality however I like the mood the glare creates. It sets a
nice contrast from the rest of the scene.

> And if you happen to be a perfectionist; the neck of the wine bottle is
too
> short and thin.

This I noticed to and I'm definetly going to change.

> But great picture.  :-)

Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

> Amazing!

Thanks!

>Who's living there?

Me:-) It's my kitchen.

Post a reply to this message

> Very good modelling, very realistic.
> Lots of detail and realistic lighting though. Very nice.

Thanks!

> You'll need to increase the
> anti-aliasing... maybe use the focal blur method, to reduce moire and
stuff.

Yes I noticed some of the jaggies while rendering, like the seam where the
cupboard doors meet. I think I can get rid of that by just increasing the
size of the gap there, this might be a coinsidence surface problem. As for
the grainines around the candle I plan to up the light count of that array
light. However I rather like the small amount of grainyness in the rest of
the scene. What AA settings would you recommend I use, it would be nice to
smooth things out a bit but I don't need/want perfect smoothness? I just
used the defaults.

Post a reply to this message

Oh by the way here are some specs if anyones interested:

Peak mem used:    194,563,457 bytes
Time For Parse:     1min, 14sec
Time For Trace:     15Hrs, 10Mins, 12 Sec

As you can see this render time is not horrendous so I'm going to increase
the quality settings on some things, I might add photons to the wine glass
and bottle.

Post a reply to this message

> Yes I noticed some of the jaggies while rendering, like the seam where the
> cupboard doors meet. I think I can get rid of that by just increasing the
> size of the gap there, this might be a coinsidence surface problem. As for
> the grainines around the candle I plan to up the light count of that array
> light. However I rather like the small amount of grainyness in the rest of
> the scene.

Aside from the cupboard doors, I also noticed the blinds above the sink had
problems (moire patterns).

> What AA settings would you recommend I use, it would be nice to
> smooth things out a bit but I don't need/want perfect smoothness? I just
> used the defaults.

I'm pretty sure the default is no anti-aliasing =)

First try +A0.2, if that still has problems (which I suspect it will), try
+AM2 +A0.1. If *that* still has problems (and it very well might), try
adding focal blur with a really small aperature, and then fiddle with the
confidence and variance (try confidence=.99 and variance=.5/255, i expect
that will work best if you want to leave some graininess in there).

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> I'm pretty sure the default is no anti-aliasing =)

hehe

> First try +A0.2, if that still has problems (which I suspect it will), try
> +AM2 +A0.1. If *that* still has problems (and it very well might), try
> adding focal blur with a really small aperature, and then fiddle with the
> confidence and variance (try confidence=.99 and variance=.5/255, i expect
> that will work best if you want to leave some graininess in there).

Thanks for the better AA settings I'll try them out. However I don't think
I'll use focal blur, I don't mind long render times but it would be nice to
have it finish some time this century:)

Post a reply to this message

> Thanks for the better AA settings I'll try them out. However I don't think
> I'll use focal blur, I don't mind long render times but it would be nice
to
> have it finish some time this century:)

Although I haven't personally tested it, I believe that if you keep the
aperature *really* small, so that there's no real blurring, then focal blur
won't be much slower than the other AA settings I gave you. If they don't
work well, then at least give it a shot on a real small section of the image
to see how slow it actually is.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> Although I haven't personally tested it, I believe that if you keep the
> aperature *really* small, so that there's no real blurring, then focal
blur
> won't be much slower than the other AA settings I gave you. If they don't
> work well, then at least give it a shot on a real small section of the
image
> to see how slow it actually is.

I'll do some benchmarks on a test scene and see.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though.

Wow! Very nice! I especially like the wood floor.. is that procedural,
or an image map? (I'm guessing the latter)

I have a few quibbles, though:

A microwave above the stove instead of a fume hood? Strikes me as a bit
odd.. or worse than odd, knowing how clogged with grease and smoke and
dust those fume hoods tend to get. I predict that microwave will be
filthy in a year. This bugs me more than anything else.

The green bottle on the island seems to have an awfully narrow neck and
mouth.. or an awfully short one, if it's a wine bottle.

The light over where the window meets the ceiling seems far too dim. My
advice is to either turn it off (in which case you'll probably have to
brighten the lights under the cabinetry and use something like Kari's
dynamic range compression to brighten up the scene) or make it brighter,
as the scene is a bit dim to begin with.

The candle needs a flame.

Another level of radiosity recursion might help bring out the details
inside the open cupboard (or not).

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> Wow! Very nice! I especially like the wood floor.. is that procedural,
> or an image map? (I'm guessing the latter)

Yes, if you have a procedure for the floor (and not an image), please
share.

Grim

Post a reply to this message

Excellent work Thomas! Source! Source! :)

George Pantazopoulos


"Thomas Lake" <tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote in message
news:3cdec7a7@news.povray.org...
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
> better looking hi res version go here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/Temp/kitchen_big.jpg
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
> Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Wow! Very nice!

Thanks.

> I especially like the wood floor.. is that procedural,
> or an image map? (I'm guessing the latter)

Afraid it is the latter:-) However with enough work you could probably
achieve something similar with lots and lots of individually textured
boards.

> I have a few quibbles, though:
>
> A microwave above the stove instead of a fume hood? Strikes me as a bit
> odd.. or worse than odd, knowing how clogged with grease and smoke and
> dust those fume hoods tend to get. I predict that microwave will be
> filthy in a year. This bugs me more than anything else.

Well since this is modeled straight from my kitchen this is actually the way
things are. The microwave doubles as the fume hood, that is under the
microwave there is a fan and filters.

> The green bottle on the island seems to have an awfully narrow neck and
> mouth.. or an awfully short one, if it's a wine bottle.

Yes this should be fixed in the next version.

> The light over where the window meets the ceiling seems far too dim. My
> advice is to either turn it off (in which case you'll probably have to
> brighten the lights under the cabinetry and use something like Kari's
> dynamic range compression to brighten up the scene) or make it brighter,
> as the scene is a bit dim to begin with.

I might brighten it up a little, I'm not sure.

> The candle needs a flame.

It has one.

> Another level of radiosity recursion might help bring out the details
> inside the open cupboard (or not).

I might do that.

Post a reply to this message

> Excellent work Thomas! Source! Source! :)

Thanks! I'm afraid I probably won't be releasing the source. For one I use
Moray to compose my scenes so the source is not the most elegant. For
another there are close to 150MB worth of meshes in there.

Post a reply to this message

> ... there are close to 150MB worth of meshes in there.

Speaking of which, I just noticed a small teapot in there... coincidence? =)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

> Speaking of which, I just noticed a small teapot in there... coincidence?
=)

Hehe no its not the famous teapot. It's modelled after a small one we keep
in our kitchen, we keep soya sauce in it.

Post a reply to this message

Hi Thomas Lake, you recently wrote in povray.binaries.images:

> I use Moray to compose my scenes so the source is not the most elegant.
Hey!


;-)


- Lutz
  email : lut### [at] stmuccom
  Web   : http://www.stmuc.com/moray

Post a reply to this message

> Hi Thomas Lake, you recently wrote in povray.binaries.images:
>
> > I use Moray to compose my scenes so the source is not the most elegant.
> Hey!
>
> ;-)

I know your joking but I feel I should clarify anyway to anyone else who
might misunderstand. When I say not elegant I really mean hard to read.
Since Moray works with a high level of precision you will get output with
lines like:

translate <5.674869,10.375968,-4.681056>

which is fine as long as your not reading the scene file, then it can get a
little daunting to look at. Also the scene file for this picture is over
17,000 lines long. Not something you can easily pick up and make sense of:-)

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas Lake" <tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote in message
news:3cdf07ae$1@news.povray.org...
> > Although I haven't personally tested it, I believe that if you
keep the
> > aperature *really* small, so that there's no real blurring, then
focal
> blur
> > won't be much slower than the other AA settings I gave you. If
they don't
> > work well, then at least give it a shot on a real small section of
the
> image
> > to see how slow it actually is.
>
> I'll do some benchmarks on a test scene and see.
>
>
Hi. Great pic with lots going on there. I've no complaints about it :)

I found focal_blur aperture 0.02 with defaults faster than +am2 +a0.2
in some cases and gives better results (pov doesn't use aa with
focal_blur).

An old image of mine with +am2 +a0.2, around 5 hours on a P166 is at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/PC-BOARD.JPG (145K)

And with focal_blur aperture 0.02, about 30 mins on a Celeron 500 at
http://peake42.freeserve.co.uk/pix1/pcboard.jpg (168K)

The differences are easy to see, aa is better with one item and blur
better with another.

Hope this helps.

--
Alf

http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://www.qsl.net/gw3srg/

Post a reply to this message

Nice image!
I particularly like the wood floor.
I agree with the "too clean" comment.

Is

Thomas Lake wrote:
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. For a
> better looking hi res version go here:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/Temp/kitchen_big.jpg
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though. 

Although modelling and composition is quite good, it lacks things, which 
are in G. Tran pictures: story, life, his pictures look like snapshots 
from real life, they are dynamic and contain movement. Your picture is 
just nature morte.

Of course I'm not the best person to tell it, as my scenes are even more 
dead :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Thomas Lake wrote:
> > Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially artistically. Just
> > always wanted to say that:-) Anyway I am proud of this image though.
>
> Although modelling and composition is quite good, it lacks things, which
> are in G. Tran pictures: story, life, his pictures look like snapshots
> from real life, they are dynamic and contain movement. Your picture is
> just nature morte.

That's why I said " Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially
artistically". I was just poking fun.

Post a reply to this message

> That's why I said " Just kidding I'm no where near his level, especially
> artistically". I was just poking fun.

Nevertheless, I think your scene is VERY good. Very realistic looking. It's
the best scene you've posted so far. I recall your posts of some individual
objects but they look much better when mixed together in this scene.

Btw I prefer the one in small resolution because of the "blur" it
introduces - and my screen resolution is only 800x600.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

> Nevertheless, I think your scene is VERY good. Very realistic looking.
It's
> the best scene you've posted so far. I recall your posts of some
individual
> objects but they look much better when mixed together in this scene.

Thanks!:-)

> Btw I prefer the one in small resolution because of the "blur" it
> introduces - and my screen resolution is only 800x600.

I'm rendering a new version right now with some better antialiasing
settings, REALLY slow! I've also changed the lighting a bit and added a few
more objects, other than the antialiasing I'm not sure I like the this
version or the version I'm rendering better.

Post a reply to this message