 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ... 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] stmuc com
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
