Marc Jacquier wrote:
>Woow I discovered your image while my own coffee was percolating so I had
>flavour as well :c)

Lucky you. Nothing can beat the flavor of a well-made coffee.

>Is it me or can we see the media container shape at the left edge of the
>steam?

Huh? hmm er... truly I hoped nobody would notice this :-)

>(I guess a spheres union)

A blob.

>I like the blue flames.
>Well are you not used to medias? They significantly slow down render .

Hmm it's not the case. The render almost came to a halt at the last lines,
near the edge of the upper part of the oven (send a ray... reflect down...
reflect up... reflect down... reflect up... repeat as many times as you can
(trace_level 25)... multiply by blur_samples... uh and don't forget about
radiosity... ouch!). I resumed the render today: after four lines at 20 PPM
it rendered reasonably fast.

>May I ask you what radiosity setting do you use?

It's not about particular radiosity settings, it's about tuning some of the
main params of the scene.
I started with a classic:

   radiosity {
        pretrace_start 0.08
        pretrace_end 0.01
        count 300
        error_bound .1
        recursion_limit 2
        gray_threshold 0
        media on
        normal on
    }
Recursion limit 2 is needed as I don't want the most hidden parts of the
scene to look black.
Then I played a while with three parameters:
brightness
diffuse value of the white walls of the kitchen (hidden to the camera)
brightness of the skysphere.
I will play with these a little more later (I'm not completely satisfied of
the result) but here's what I'm using now:
brightness 2
sky_sphere_pigment_multiplier = 2
walls_diffuse = 0.5 (higher values make it look a little washed out)
Of course you need a standard size French window to let the light pass
through.
Hope this helps.


--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
>Nice, but you should clean that coffee pot. ;-)

Heh, thanks.

>Concerning the lighting, i think when reflection is involved it is usually
>a good idea to use Jaime's technique for the radiosity calculation, i.e.
>take the radiosity data with dummy textures without reflection and reuse
>it.  It might be necessary to do this precalculation at a higher
>resolution but it usually leads to fast and smooth results.

I'm already doing that, but the final scene renders pretty slow anyway. I'm
saving radiosity data without reflections at the final resolution. I don't
change any settings but pretrace_start and pretrace_end ('course I turn off
always_sample).
Yes, more samples are taken during the final render (about 0.3 percent),
which is a good thing because of the reflections.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:07:16 +0100
>Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>> Nice, but you should clean that coffee pot. ;-)
>
>  Never!  Only when a percolator gets that used it begins to make good
>coffe. Seriously!

Holy words.

>> Concerning the lighting, i think when reflection is involved it is
>> usually a good idea to use Jaime's technique for the radiosity
>> calculation, i.e. take the radiosity data with dummy textures without
>> reflection and reuse it.  It might be necessary to do this
>> precalculation at a higher resolution but it usually leads to fast and
>> smooth results.
>
>  Hmmm... actually I always render the precalculation at half resolution
>but with higher settings than I will use with the real scene. I usually
>get ride of the artifacts raising the error_bound a bit on the final
>render.

Hmm I still have to try something like this.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Martin Magnusson wrote:
>As with the last image, most of the scene looks stunning.

Thanks a lot.

>What I would
>change is the texture for the top part of the perculator. The bottom is
>great, but the upper part looks too spotted IMO. More like a bozo
>pattern than stains. You could try making a material_map so that you
>have more control of where the stains are and how they are shaped.

Yes, this close up shows the problem. But in the final scene I don't think
it'll be an issue.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
>Sorry, I am on a roll and I couldn't resist :)

Kewl. You did that in PS didnt you. How did you do that?

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Tony[B] wrote:
>How dare you render something so frikkin' realistic?! Aaarrgh. Why do you
>keep raising the bar? I'll never catch up! :)

Heh, thank you!
Nice to hear from you again.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

Daniel Matthews wrote:
>JRG wrote:
>
>> A close up of the coffee percolator with steam and bluish fire.
>
>That is very good, but my coffee pot, which is exactly the same, has steam
>come out of the hole near the lid hinge as well as the spout.

Hmm, have to check this... fine, let's have a coffee!

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

=Bob= wrote:
>Nice image. The flames look a little too uniform, but
>they still look great. The steam looks like it's following
>its container too closely. Love the lighting...

Thank you. You're right about the media container, but I don't think the
problem will show in the final scene.

--
Jonathan

Post a reply to this message

web.3de682c8a6c6dfac978071460@news.povray.org...
> Hope this helps.

Grazie mile!! :-)
Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:21:26 EST, "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Kewl. You did that in PS didnt you. How did you do that?

Quite easy, actually. Desaturate, curves and film grain for the sepia
toning, then a copy of the original color pic as a new layer over
that, blended as "color" and masked so that only the flames show.

It doesn't do your pic much good but it does wonders to poorly taken
color photographs. As I said, I'm on a roll, having fun with this kind
of thing, and I figured I hadn't had a still life cannibalized yet,
so... :)


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message