Slime wrote:
>Very nice scene! A few suggestions:

Thank you.

>1. Make those dots on the oven larger so that none of them are missed.

So no need for a 2048x1596 render?? Wow I'm the king of dumbs... ;-)

>2. Excellent wood texture, but I would expect the wood to look stained or
>something (right now it looks like someone just put it together).

Yes. Some dirt on it is on my to do list.

>3. Vary the wall tiles a little. Maybe have 3 different (but similar) kinds
>of tiles, or have most of them plain except for an occasional, random
>flowery one, or something like that. The repetition is too strong right now,
>I think.

Consider it done.

>4. Make sure the final composition doesn't have the head-on shot that this
>picture has. Take it from a more interesting angle.

Sure. This is just a test render to see how things blend together :-)

>5. Make us a tutorial on texturing. =)

?? Most of them are very cheap single layer textures... nothing really
fancy.

>
>Sounds like you almost ran out of memory.

Nope. Quicktime caused an error in kernel32.dll or something... a classic
but scary! Thank you very much for your input!

>
> - Slime
>

--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message

Fernando Gonzalez del Cueto wrote:
>EXCELLENT! IMPRESSIVE!

Hey, I'm glad you like it, thanks!

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

hughes, b. wrote:
>Nice scene started there, sure hope you can complete it okay. Looks like
>photons are not used (yet?).

No Martini no p... I mean no lightsources no photons, and no I'm not going
to mess with lightgroups or tricks like that... ;-)

>I like the model home look myself. Tends to show how well CG can be shown in
>a realistic way while it can still be seen as CG. And if I were to show this
>to some people they'd ask if I have a new kitchen without knowing the truth
>anyway. It looks very good as is, very fine work on that. Maybe the tile
>paintings could have less relief though. My mother paints such things a lot
>and these are somewhat lumpy with those highlights showing.

Actually I added that bumpiness just because I thought it looked cool... not
because of any real reference... hmm I'll try different combos and choose
what I see fit.

Thanks!

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Gwen & Emory Stagmer wrote:
>This is REALLY very nice

Thank you.

>- one simple suggestion - put a little
>randomization on the placement of the glasses in the cabinet.

Yes, you're right but, you know, those glasses are so darn close one to each
other... and I'm so lazy... no seriously I'll fix that thanks :-)

>Also, a couple of degrees of random tile to the bowls in the stack.

You don't like blue do you? ;-)

>Mess it up a little - right now it's just a little TOO perfect! ;)

Agreed, thanks!

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
>Impressive image!

Thanks!

>I fail to see how it falls on topic, though...
>anyway, I am not a voter so no sweat there, but voters may also have
>the same problem.

That's why I put a WIP 1 there :-)
Anyway, if the final scene doesn't fit the topic, fine, I won't enter the
round, but at least I'll finally have a piece of work finished!

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Florian Brucker wrote:
>hey
hola

>this one looks really great. i love these textures! slime is right, a
>tutorial would be *very* nice ;-)
>
>you did that one in one week? oh my good, i'm now working three weeks on my
>current image and it looks still so unfinished. perhaps i should stop going
>to school and start rendering all day long ...

University is the main reason I didn't raytrace for so long.

>looking forward to see the final image
me too :-) cross fingers.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
>As usually magnificent!! Clean but convincing. That's because of good
>lighting. Just the wood may be too clean, if it's supposed to be real wood.

Thanks, and yes you're right about the wood, I'll dirt it up.

>> everything but POV-Ray (phew!) which continued
>> undisturbed its job... talking about luck.
>
>Talking about quality.  ;o)
>
>Btw, I'm using your trick for a window-highlight now (or perhaps just
>something close to your trick), thanks to your help. But I still find a
>combination of light_sources and radiosity to give the best results. My
>tests are based on a grey sphere on a grey plane; a minimal scene without
>'textures'.. But artifacts seems rarely visible in your posts, which
>continously amaze me.

No tricks here. This time the wall is a "real" wall. Although it may look
similar it's a completely different radiosity setup, slower but better.

Cheers,

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
>> you did that one in one week?
>
>Don't worry, he didn't do this in one week.  :o)  He worked on this for ...
>quite some time. If you search the posts in this group, you'll see.

Yes the coffe percolator is almost one year old, which is sad: I can make a
several hundreds lines CSG model and texture it in one day, then I feel so
tired that I can't touch POV-Ray for weeks. This way I'll never finish a
scene... :-( Together with the fact that I'm very busy at university, this
is the main reason why my productivity is so unbelievably low...
Anyway, I did do that in one week, except the oven, the coffe percolator,
the juice bottle and the smallest jar, as stated elsewhere.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Ah, beautiful!
>
>Actual photorealism as opposed to "nauseating raytracing trying too hard to
>be photorealistic" .

Thank you Greg! This could also serve as a beautiful signature...

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Ah, beautiful!
>
>Actual photorealism as opposed to "nauseating raytracing trying too hard to
>be photorealistic" .

Thank you Greg! This could also serve as a nice signature.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message