 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A few changes, mainly in illumination and the finish of the dice.
I tried to emphasize that the dots are carvings and not only paint. I don't
know if it is noticeable.
I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
Overall, I think it did improve from last version.
I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
Fernando González del Cueto.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dice14_pp.JPG' (101 KB)
Preview of image 'dice14_pp.JPG'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
I'd make the corners just slightly sharper, but otherwise, it looks very good.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto" <fcu### [at] yahoo com> wrote :
>
> I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
You know, I've been looking around, and I don't see any noise. Perhaps
you meant photo-realism, which is much less real than realism. Or perhaps it
is time you had your eyes checked?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's great.
It's a shame the render isn't higher quality. Perhaps you should make
another render over a very long period of time...
"Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto" <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3d039e5a@news.povray.org...
> A few changes, mainly in illumination and the finish of the dice.
>
> I tried to emphasize that the dots are carvings and not only paint. I
don't
> know if it is noticeable.
>
> I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
>
> Overall, I think it did improve from last version.
>
> I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
>
> Fernando González del Cueto.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's the same image without the noise. If you compared them closely, you
can see that this one is cleaner.
I used the technique described by Kari Kavisalo some posts ago. Scale up the
image, add noise (double noise in the blue channel), blur a bit, scale down
again.
It's subtle, but should be noticeable to the trained eye.
And yes, among other shortcomings, I have far-from-perfect eyesight. Perhaps
somebody who was born luckier than me, and has better eyes could tell me
that both images are not the same.
Of course, I strive for realism and photo-realism, please forgive my poor
English which didn't let me express myself as I wanted.
Fernando.
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3d03aa22$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto" <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
> >
> > I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
>
> You know, I've been looking around, and I don't see any noise. Perhaps
> you meant photo-realism, which is much less real than realism. Or perhaps
it
> is time you had your eyes checked?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dice14ppns.JPG' (80 KB)
Preview of image 'dice14ppns.JPG'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:3D0### [at] infomagicnet...
> Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
> >
> > I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
>
> I'd make the corners just slightly sharper, but otherwise, it looks very
good.
Thanks Xplo, I'm glad you liked it! If I have time, I'll experiment with
sharper dice.
Thanks for your suggestion!
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ncryptor" <o### [at] ocom> wrote in message news:3d03b2bf@news.povray.org...
> It's great.
> It's a shame the render isn't higher quality. Perhaps you should make
> another render over a very long period of time...
Thanks ncryptor! Yes, I agree... This one took about 1h30m in my PII@833.
Probably I'll render a larger version with better focal blur overnight.
Thanks again!
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto" <fcu### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3d03b478@news.povray.org...
> Thanks ncryptor! Yes, I agree... This one took about 1h30m in my PII@833.
> Probably I'll render a larger version with better focal blur overnight.
I think it would be better if you used a slightly wider depth of field also.
All the best,
Andy Cocker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like it, though the focal blur definitely needs some higher settings, and
I'm really not crazy about this add-noise-for-photorealism trick that
everyone's doing. =)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Slime,
I'm glad you liked it! Perhaps I'll leave it overnight rendering with more
ambitious settings; I agree that the focal blur needs more samples.
About the noise, I'm also not fully convinced about it's usefulness... But
thanks for your comment.
Fernando.
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3d03d61a$1@news.povray.org...
> I like it, though the focal blur definitely needs some higher settings,
and
> I'm really not crazy about this add-noise-for-photorealism trick that
> everyone's doing. =)
>
> - Slime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This noise is post processed, no? What's the difference between that and
jitter?
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
me neither. i think too much noise makes it look like heavy jpeg
compression.
john
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3d03d61a$1@news.povray.org...
> I like it, though the focal blur definitely needs some higher settings,
and
> I'm really not crazy about this add-noise-for-photorealism trick that
> everyone's doing. =)
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Skip Talbot" <sta### [at] uiucedu> wrote in message
news:3d04030e$1@news.povray.org...
> This noise is post processed, no? What's the difference between that and
> jitter?
I guess that setting some jitter may slow down (more!) the render. A
postprocessed noise lets you add noise by trial-and-error without having to
re-render the scene too many times.
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very, very nice Fernando.
<rant>
You know, it's really funny- I frequent forums for the Max, Brazil, and
Universe3D packages and many times I will notice people talking down on POV
users. I then see images such as this and just want to flood the forums with
links to these images just to show what truly creative and talented people
can do with this package -without the benefit of a modeller (or at most
Moray, that, while good, is not anywhere in the same league as Max etc.)- in
the vain hope of deflating their egos.
</rant>
Ok, sorry about that. Again, really nice pic man!
-Oldstench
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 20:38:12 -0500, "Skip Talbot" <sta### [at] uiucedu>
wrote:
>This noise is post processed, no? What's the difference between that and
>jitter?
It depends on what is being jittered and for what reason. :)
Sometimes jitter is used along with multiple samples per pixel to
minimize what might otherwise be large errors in the value of a
particular pixel. In a case like this, it is actually reducing the
apparent noise {in that case, jaggies) of an image.
Later,
Glen
7no### [at] ezwvcom (Remove the numeral "7")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oldstench, you have made me very happy with your comment :) I'm truly glad
that you liked it.
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dude its perfect
just one thing
;)
make it 1024 768
and Ill put it as my desktop
:)
Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
> A few changes, mainly in illumination and the finish of the dice.
>
> I tried to emphasize that the dots are carvings and not only paint. I don't
> know if it is noticeable.
>
> I applied a slight noise, again, to add a bit of realism.
>
> Overall, I think it did improve from last version.
>
> I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
>
> Fernando González del Cueto.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Flaming Monarch" <fla### [at] gatescom> wrote in message
news:3D0### [at] gatescom...
> Dude its perfect
> just one thing
> ;)
> make it 1024 768
> and Ill put it as my desktop
> :)
Thanks!!! I'll post it right away!
Fernando.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 13:29:54 -0500, Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
> I'm very interested in you opinions/comments.
This version is definitely better, the green velvet table would have been
nice, but the wallnut finish is just as good.
--
%HAV-A-NICEDAY email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
Steve web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
6:45pm up 18 days, 16:40, 1 user, load average: 1.03, 1.13, 1.17
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These are better.
I see the noise, and now that I do, I'm wondering how much it actually helped in
this particular case since you used lower focal blur settings. Which then leads
me to wonder if film grain noise couldn't be simulated with screen.inc and the
blurred patterns trick.
--
light_source{0,1}#macro c(J,a)sphere{0,1pigment{rgb z}scale a translate J+O}
#end#macro B(R,V,O)c(0,4)intersection{c(V,R)difference{c(-z*4x+10)c(-z*4.1x+
10)c(0<7.5,45,5>)}}#end B(12,0z*25)B(8y*4<0,12,50>) // Batronyx ^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the confirmation Batronyx :)
I really don't know about the simulation, but I believe that that type of
things shouldn't be done inside POV, but be postprocessed. It isn't
practical to trial and error with POV, it takes just too much time to
re-render scenes.
Thanks again,
Fernando.
"Batronyx" <bat### [at] alliancecablenet> wrote in message
news:3d0954b1$1@news.povray.org...
> These are better.
> I see the noise, and now that I do, I'm wondering how much it actually
helped in
> this particular case since you used lower focal blur settings. Which then
leads
> me to wonder if film grain noise couldn't be simulated with screen.inc and
the
> blurred patterns trick.
>
>
> --
> light_source{0,1}#macro c(J,a)sphere{0,1pigment{rgb z}scale a translate
J+O}
> #end#macro
B(R,V,O)c(0,4)intersection{c(V,R)difference{c(-z*4x+10)c(-z*4.1x+
> 10)c(0<7.5,45,5>)}}#end B(12,0z*25)B(8y*4<0,12,50>) // Batronyx
^"^
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thanks for the confirmation Batronyx :)
>
> I really don't know about the simulation, but I believe that that type of
> things shouldn't be done inside POV, but be postprocessed. It isn't
> practical to trial and error with POV, it takes just too much time to
> re-render scenes.
>
> Thanks again,
>
Curiosity vs. pragmatism. I suppose it depends on your goals. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
