"Aaron Gillies" <zap### [at] yowcom> wrote in message
news:40bb11b6@news.povray.org...

<snip>

To me, the limes do not seem to be touching the bottom of the bowl. If you
"trace" the level of the surface in this picture, and assume that the
thickness of the bottom of the bowl is about the same as the thickness of
the rim, they seem to be floating.

Cheers,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

I actually just did a test render of the limes and the glass inner bowl and
the limes are actually touching the interior base.  Must be a combo of the
camera angle and the outer bowl that makes it look like that ...

> To me, the limes do not seem to be touching the bottom of the bowl.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the comments, guys.  I guess I still have some work to do with
the total illumination of the scene.  My home monitor is just about to give
out, so I'm not sure that the brightness and contrast levels are exactly how
you see them on well-calibrated screens.

Post a reply to this message

Not really following this thread closely... but this latest post looks 
really very realistic. Nice work.

Andrew @ home.

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <zap### [at] yowcom> wrote in message
news:40bb11b6@news.povray.org...
> POV folks:
>
> Here is the latest iteration on my limes still life.  I have incorporated
> the suggestions that I got from the last couple of postings into this one.
> The limes are a better color and shape, although the shape is not perfect.
> I toned down the vivid red in the ceramic pot.  I think I'm making some
> progress ...
>

This is looking really good.  For the composition of the piece I'm wondering
if you've cropped it to close at the top?

If there was a bit more 'empty space' above the limes, it might give a more
natural feel to the picture. Something to try out maybe.

Post a reply to this message

Aaron Gillies wrote:

> POV folks:
> 
> Here is the latest iteration on my limes still life.  I have incorporated
> the suggestions that I got from the last couple of postings into this one.
> The limes are a better color and shape, although the shape is not perfect.
> I toned down the vivid red in the ceramic pot.  I think I'm making some
> progress ...

much better limes. the floor texture looks like it has less of a normal this
time. I like the version 2 floor better. maybe it's due to the change i
camera placement though.

I wonder how you could make the shadows of the limes to be the complimentary
color, like cezanne did so often in his still lifes.

Post a reply to this message

Ross Litscher nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004/06/01 06:55... :

>Aaron Gillies wrote:
>
>  
>
>>POV folks:
>>
>>Here is the latest iteration on my limes still life.  I have incorporated
>>the suggestions that I got from the last couple of postings into this one.
>>The limes are a better color and shape, although the shape is not perfect.
>>I toned down the vivid red in the ceramic pot.  I think I'm making some
>>progress ...
>>    
>>
>
>much better limes. the floor texture looks like it has less of a normal this
>time. I like the version 2 floor better. maybe it's due to the change i
>camera placement though.
>
>I wonder how you could make the shadows of the limes to be the complimentary
>color, like cezanne did so often in his still lifes.
>
>
>  
>
A light_source with the projected_through property. Make a second 
no_image copy of your object, flaten it perpendicular to the light, 
locate it a bit behind the main object and have the project_through 
light coincide with your primary light. Give that light the colour you 
want for the shadow, like bright red.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

Hmmm .... I changed the finish on the floor to be less reflective, because I
increased the intensity of one of the light sources and it made the floor
too "noticeable."  I'll try to see what else I can do ...

As far as the Cezanne effect goes ...  I am doing on variation on this, but
not with complimentary colors.  One light source is yellow and the other is
blue ...  The blue provides the "cooler" illumination in the shadow, but I
suppose something like this could be reversed ...  It's very subtle, but
serves to "round out" the image in a way.

Aaron


> much better limes. the floor texture looks like it has less of a normal
this
> time. I like the version 2 floor better. maybe it's due to the change i
> camera placement though.
>
> I wonder how you could make the shadows of the limes to be the
complimentary
> color, like cezanne did so often in his still lifes.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertygov> wrote in message
news:40bd03a7@news.povray.org...
> Ross Litscher nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004/06/01 06:55... :
>
> >Aaron Gillies wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>POV folks:
> >>
> >>Here is the latest iteration on my limes still life.  I have
incorporated
> >>the suggestions that I got from the last couple of postings into this
one.
> >>The limes are a better color and shape, although the shape is not
perfect.
> >>I toned down the vivid red in the ceramic pot.  I think I'm making some
> >>progress ...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >much better limes. the floor texture looks like it has less of a normal
this
> >time. I like the version 2 floor better. maybe it's due to the change i
> >camera placement though.
> >
> >I wonder how you could make the shadows of the limes to be the
complimentary
> >color, like cezanne did so often in his still lifes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> A light_source with the projected_through property. Make a second
> no_image copy of your object, flaten it perpendicular to the light,
> locate it a bit behind the main object and have the project_through
> light coincide with your primary light. Give that light the colour you
> want for the shadow, like bright red.
>
> Alain

cool. i've never played with those features. thanks for the tip. i'm not
sure why you have to flatten the no_image copy. i guess i'll wait and see
when i get home :)

can multiple "projected_through { OBJECT }" statements be inside a
light_source, or would i have to declare a union {...} around all the
objects i want to use? Also, i'm curious why no_image is neccesary (again,
i've never used it). projected_through documentation states, "Any textures
or interiors on the object will be stripped and the object will not show up
in the scene."

of course, this all may become obvious later when i try it out.

Post a reply to this message

Ross nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004/06/02 12:40... :

>"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertygov> wrote in message
>news:40bd03a7@news.povray.org...
>  
>
>>Ross Litscher nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004/06/01 06:55... :
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Aaron Gillies wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>POV folks:
>>>>
>>>>Here is the latest iteration on my limes still life.  I have
>>>>        
>>>>
>incorporated
>  
>
>>>>the suggestions that I got from the last couple of postings into this
>>>>        
>>>>
>one.
>  
>
>>>>The limes are a better color and shape, although the shape is not
>>>>        
>>>>
>perfect.
>  
>
>>>>I toned down the vivid red in the ceramic pot.  I think I'm making some
>>>>progress ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>much better limes. the floor texture looks like it has less of a normal
>>>      
>>>
>this
>  
>
>>>time. I like the version 2 floor better. maybe it's due to the change i
>>>camera placement though.
>>>
>>>I wonder how you could make the shadows of the limes to be the
>>>      
>>>
>complimentary
>  
>
>>>color, like cezanne did so often in his still lifes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>A light_source with the projected_through property. Make a second
>>no_image copy of your object, flaten it perpendicular to the light,
>>locate it a bit behind the main object and have the project_through
>>light coincide with your primary light. Give that light the colour you
>>want for the shadow, like bright red.
>>
>>Alain
>>    
>>
>
>cool. i've never played with those features. thanks for the tip. i'm not
>sure why you have to flatten the no_image copy. i guess i'll wait and see
>when i get home :)
>
>can multiple "projected_through { OBJECT }" statements be inside a
>light_source,
>
don't know... but

> or would i have to declare a union {...} around all the
>objects i want to use?
>
Puting all objects in an union will make it simpler for you, less 
chances to make errors. It can also reduce memory use.

> Also, i'm curious why no_image is neccesary (again,
>i've never used it). projected_through documentation states, "Any textures
>or interiors on the object will be stripped and the object will not show up
>in the scene."
>  
>
OK, I forgot about that bit of information. So, you don't need to add 
the "no_image" as it's added by the projected_through.

>of course, this all may become obvious later when i try it out.
>
>
>
>  
>
If you don't flaten the object, it can cause the projected_through light 
to shine on some part of the visible object if those are behind any part 
of the one used to do the projection. You may also keep only those 
components that are the most away from the light_source.

Alain

Post a reply to this message