Easy to tell which desk is yours! :-)  A wonderfully real image - bravo!!!
Bill


"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:41038bdb@news.povray.org...
> --
> Jaime
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Awesome Rolex!

How long did you work on this image in total? Hours/Days/Months/Years?

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Outstanding as always, Jaime!

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
> Awesome Rolex!

   Not really that photorealistic, but thanks anyhow!

> How long did you work on this image in total? Hours/Days/Months/Years?
> 

   It's very difficult to say how many time I've been working on this 
scene... It was started at least 2 years ago, but I've been working on 
it very sporadically. In total, taking out the time it was stalled, 
perhaps 3 or 4 months.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime - fantastic! Well done. 

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
>    I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>    I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> --
> Jaime

As always, you are the best.
Difficult to say if it is a real photography or a rendered picture.
I particulary like the pov sticker and the painting of one of your render
with the oranges.

Are you smoker ?

Good job.

Post a reply to this message

WOW! Jaime my jaw hit the floor when I say this... and it's still there 
:) I'm glad you finished it, this totally knocked my socks off.

I like how it's very photorealistic, but at the same time has this 
surreal feel to it.. its hard to explain. Maybe it's the high color 
saturation, but I think it's something more than just that. In any case 
I love that look. Do you know what I mean?

I also like the "No POV-ing" sign :-)

George

Post a reply to this message

Hi Jaime,

With little analysis, I'm able to see were is your desk. You are a rules 
breaker: You are not suppose to smoke, neither poving in this office. I was 
wondering why you were not sitting at your desk, but it's pretty obvious: 
you were taking the picture with your camera.....

Great and superb work, as always the lighting is pretty clever.

Ciao!

Mart


Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in 
news:41038bdb@news.povray.org:

>    I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.

Post a reply to this message

Martin Belair <bad### [at] hotmailDOTcom> wrote in
news:Xns9531670277904badhabit07hotmaildot@203.29.75.35: 


> With little analysis, I'm able to see were is your desk.


Oupss.... see were is your desk = where is

Post a reply to this message

Excellent!
I like the lighting and the semi-reflective floor. 
And details like the curly cable of the telephone...

(Strange that I get the odd impression that the clock on the wall 
is elliptical and wider than high...)

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message

Wolfgang Wieser wrote:
> (Strange that I get the odd impression that the clock on the wall 
> is elliptical and wider than high...)

That is most likely because of perspective camera is being used. Circles 
are circles only in the center of the images.

Severi S.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
>   I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>   I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.

Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the 
windows is not bright enough.  Since the sun is shining outside 
everything visible through the windows should be completely white.  This 
is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on a 
photo.  It is completely understandable that you try to use a more 
balanced lighting.

BTW you should stop smoking (and if i was working in that office you 
would already have, or have quit the job.)

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

> Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the 
> windows is not bright enough.  Since the sun is shining outside 
> everything visible through the windows should be completely white.  This 
> is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on a 
> photo.


Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things 
(windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most likely 
not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be totally white. 
It is also possible to compress very wide brightness levels on a single 
photo - either using traditional or digital darkroom techniques. Typical 
Wal-Mart photos might be a different thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY 
good.

BTW, in the left-most windows everything is actually quite white so stop 
nitpicking ;-)

Regards,
Severi S.

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:
>> Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the 
>> windows is not bright enough.  Since the sun is shining outside 
>> everything visible through the windows should be completely white.  
>> This is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on 
>> a photo.
> 
> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things 
> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most likely 
> not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be totally white. 
> It is also possible to compress very wide brightness levels on a single 
> photo - either using traditional or digital darkroom techniques. Typical 
> Wal-Mart photos might be a different thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY 
> good.

Can you show a photograph to support this claim?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Severi Salminen wrote:
>> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things 
>> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most 
>> likely not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be 
>> totally white. It is also possible to compress very wide brightness 
>> levels on a single photo - either using traditional or digital 
>> darkroom techniques. Typical Wal-Mart photos might be a different 
>> thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY good.
> 
> 
> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?

I don't know which claim do you mean (there were many) but here is one 
that shows one digital technique:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

With traditional film you can record easily a 13+ stop (1:2^13) range of 
brightness levels in one negative frame and print them to look non-white 
(ie. not "blown out" which you mean). This requires just some reduction 
in film developement time (to decrease its contrast) and results lower 
middle value contrast. There are also other techniques like: "burning", 
"dodging", "pre-flashing" etc. So it is indeed not impossible at all. 
The result depends also _how_ big the contrast difference in the scene 
is. In Jaime's image the sun was shining also little to the room and 
there were lamps in the ceiling. Also the nearby building was in shade 
so the difference is not that big.

If I come up with a traditional photo that shows simultaneously a room 
from inside and something outside I'll post the link to this thread.

Regards,
Severi S.

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

>> Actually it wouldn't. As you can see there are quite dark things 
>> (windows of nearby building?) visible outside. As the sun is most 
>> likely not hitting there (notice the angle), they should not be 
>> totally white. It is also possible to compress very wide brightness 
>> levels on a single photo - either using traditional or digital 
>> darkroom techniques. Typical Wal-Mart photos might be a different 
>> thing :) So IMHO the result is VERY good.
> 
> 
> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?

Here are some decent examples. I hope these are what you mean:

http://www.imagicdigital.com/interiors.html

BTW, It is likely that at least in some images the photographer used 
flash lights. Not sure though.

Regards,
Severi Salminen

Post a reply to this message

D-fence wrote:
> I particularly like the pov sticker and the painting of one of your render
> with the oranges.

   Thanks! I had to put something on the walls, and my images were just 
here... But for the POV-Ray magazine I used "capriccio", as it was a bit 
pretentious to put my own images on the cover. :)

> Are you smoker ?

   Unfortunately... :( I'm not really a big smoker, so it must not be 
that difficult to quit... someday.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:
>>
>> Can you show a photograph to support this claim?
> 
> 
> Here are some decent examples. I hope these are what you mean:
> 
> http://www.imagicdigital.com/interiors.html
> 

These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites 
from several photographs).  None on them looks like a realistic photo to me.

Remember: i am not saying you can't tweak a photo to look similar to 
Jaime's render.  I am just saying that the lighting in the scene is not 
completely realistic and a photo of such a scenery that is not heavily 
altered would look quite a bit different.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

George Pantazopoulos wrote:
> WOW! Jaime my jaw hit the floor when I say this... and it's still there 
> :) I'm glad you finished it, this totally knocked my socks off.

   Thanks!

> I like how it's very photorealistic, but at the same time has this 
> surreal feel to it.. its hard to explain. Maybe it's the high color 
> saturation, but I think it's something more than just that. In any case 
> I love that look. Do you know what I mean?

   Yes, I know exactly what you mean. I played decreasing the saturation 
with Gimp and it looked more photographic, but also less interesting.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Impressive, some technical nitpicking: the light coming through the 
> windows is not bright enough.  Since the sun is shining outside 
> everything visible through the windows should be completely white.  This 
> is of course a purely technical note - how it would look like on a 
> photo.  It is completely understandable that you try to use a more 
> balanced lighting.

   You are correct, as usual. I tried a more brighter outside, but then 
I was losing some detail on the windows and blinds.

> BTW you should stop smoking (and if i was working in that office you 
> would already have, or have quit the job.)

   I know, I know... but I'm well educated: I don't smoke at work or in 
public places. In fact, I smoke mostly when poving at home... :(

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites 
> from several photographs).  None on them looks like a realistic photo to 
> me.

That is because of what you expect. You seem to expect that the 
highlights are blown out and shadows are "blocked" (no details). That 
happens with 1 hour lab photos. But with other ways you can reduce that 
"effect" even without using composites. I desribed some of those methods 
in the other post.

> Remember: i am not saying you can't tweak a photo to look similar to 
> Jaime's render.  I am just saying that the lighting in the scene is not 
> completely realistic and a photo of such a scenery that is not heavily 
> altered would look quite a bit different.

How about the third photo on this page:

http://www.smsu.edu/design/projects/Library2.htm

It at least resembles Jaime's photo distantly. But I see your point 
allthough IMO Jaime's image had quite realistic lighting that could've 
been seen in a "real" photo.

Severi Salminen

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
>> These seem all heavily post processed (in most cases even composites 
>> from several photographs).  None on them looks like a realistic photo 
>> to me.
> 
> That is because of what you expect.

No, that's because they are physically impossible.  No photographic 
technique can generate a photo where a brightness difference of the 
scene in reality is inverted on the photo (i.e. a part brighter than a 
second one in reality is darker than the second one on the photo).

>> Remember: i am not saying you can't tweak a photo to look similar to 
>> Jaime's render.  I am just saying that the lighting in the scene is 
>> not completely realistic and a photo of such a scenery that is not 
>> heavily altered would look quite a bit different.
> 
> 
> How about the third photo on this page:
> 
> http://www.smsu.edu/design/projects/Library2.htm
> 
> It at least resembles Jaime's photo distantly. 

Not at all, the lighting situation is completely different - one whole 
wall of the room is windows - even without the covering of the windows 
Jaime's room would only have less than 1/3 of one wall as windows.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Reached epic proportions with this one, Jaime.

I like the subtle things, like the planter diffusing the sunlight onto the
phone and also back there at the file cabinet onto the bookcase.

Maybe everyone was laid off work until they learn to stop rendering with POV
on their computers? Looks like the nearest monitor shows this very scene in
POV-Ray, so perhaps the others are network-rendering.
:-)
Trying to think of what might could use a change... Those fluorescent
lights, possibly. I'd expect them to show the actual bulbs, with a
blue-green glow in the diffuser panels, since there's sunlight illuminating
the picture. Also, the ceiling panels could be textured, as many usually
are.

Really love how this image shows off what can be done with POV.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Jaw drops... wow...

There's a lot of detail there. Impressive,

Mola mucho :)

Fernando

Post a reply to this message

in news:ce0r1v$7l8$1@chho.imagico.de Christoph Hormann wrote:

> No, that's because they are physically impossible.  No photographic 
> technique can generate a photo where a brightness difference of the 
> scene in reality is inverted on the photo (i.e. a part brighter than a 
> second one in reality is darker than the second one on the photo).
> 

Actually, the guys at kodak etc. put a lot of effort in making film behave 
decently. Old, unbuffered film and also old TV camera's do exactly that. 
The gamma curve of a film doesn't stop at the shoulder. After it reached 
the top it goes down again. You can see the result in old photographs, 
where the sun is black instead of white. Also in old TV recordings it can 
be seen, the black highlights on trumpets for example.

For what Severi means, check out the "zone system", if you don't know it 
already. Every photograph has manipulated contrast.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
>   I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>   I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Even though you bring to an epitome the patient building of quality 
scenes, this is a remarkable outcome.  An inspirational reminder to all 
of us who get frustrated if we don't get the result we wanted after the 
first week.

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
>   I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>   I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)

The lighting seems unbalanced to me; the overhead lighting seems a bit 
too bright compared to the sunlight. In most offices that I've seen, if 
sunlight is streaming in through windows, the overhead lighting seems 
dim, almost nonexistent by contrast.

Aside from that, this is a beautiful image. Composition, modeling, 
texturing, and even lighting (even though I don't agree with it) are all 
  excellent, as usual.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
>   I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>   I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Phoos are not alowed here...
Seriously, the work is awesone... I never though somebody can make this 
kind of so beautyfull image with pov... It looks like reality ! Where is 
Gilles Tran ? Call him back !!! ;-))
-Respect-

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:
> 
> For what Severi means, check out the "zone system", if you don't know it 
> already. Every photograph has manipulated contrast.
> 

This is not about manipulating contrast, the examples Severi showed were 
clearly using selective manipulation of certain parts of images.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Very, very impressive. The only unrealisting thing I can see is that the 
office is too clean. Especially if this is in Spain. I mean, Spain, and 
only one tiny bit of paper next to the bin, yeah right :). But again, 
very impressive.

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
>   I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more 
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>   I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jaime
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
>    I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
> 
>    I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper parts.
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> --
> Jaime

As I see that you take the time to answer to many people here, I was
wondering if you could take some time to teach your knowledge ?

I know that your website is already a gold mine of informations but I would
like to know how you work :
        - do you use the GNU/Linux version of POV with a bunch of scripts or the
Windows version ?
        - do you create each object of a scene seperately ?
        - do you make a lot of render or do you work "blinded" ?
        - ...

All that kind of question. Like a master to the followers that we are.

Thanks

Christophe Monniez
AKA
D-fence

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:

...
> http://www.imagicdigital.com/interiors.html
...

This one is interesting:

http://www.imagicdigital.com/wtc/wtc.html

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

Grat !!!!!!!! It's a photo, isn't it ?

-- 

Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net

A+

Post a reply to this message

D-fence wrote:
> As I see that you take the time to answer to many people here, I was
> wondering if you could take some time to teach your knowledge ?

   Of course!

> like to know how you work :
>         - do you use the GNU/Linux version of POV with a bunch of scripts or the
> Windows version ?

   I use the Linux version, usually just from an xterm. The only script 
I use is to shorten the name, so I can type "pov scene". I use 
WindowMaker as graphic window manager, ROX filer as file manager and 
gvim as text editor. My usual work flow is to open a ROX window with the 
scene folder, double click on the scene, type into gvim, then use 
alt-tab to change to xterm where I type the command line or use the 
upper arrow to recover last call. For me it's a very simple but fast 
work cycle.

>         - do you create each object of a scene separately ?

   Hmmm... not as often as I must... I mostly use partial rendering to 
model the object "in place", but I can hardly recommend it over the 
separate scene, which is a much more serious approach.

>         - do you make a lot of render or do you work "blinded" ?

   Can I say "both"? :) Although I get what I expected most of the 
times, I still need to do a lot of test renders.

   Thanks for compliments, Christophe.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

>> That is because of what you expect.
> 
> 
> No, that's because they are physically impossible.  No photographic 
> technique can generate a photo where a brightness difference of the 
> scene in reality is inverted on the photo (i.e. a part brighter than a 
> second one in reality is darker than the second one on the photo).

I meant in more general sense than just the examples I provided. But as 
I said I don't know how they were made. You just wanted to see images 
showing wide dynamic range in single photo. But did you mean that you 
want to see an _unmanipulated_ (no composites, no selective brightening 
etc.) photograph showing wide dynamic range?

Back to Jamie's image:

First of all you don't know if the things outside are sunlit or in the 
shadow - I think they are not and can't be. Second, you don't know how 
bright the lamps are supposed to be. So basically you can't say anything 
about the ratio of those two lighting conditions and thus how they 
should look in a real photograph (what ever that means...)

It is hard to find photos showing wide brightness range with traditional 
films using Google but when I make one I try to scan it and post 
somewhere. Most of the pics in net are made with digital P&S cameras 
which have a very short dynamic range. Nothing compared to traditional 
B&W film - allthough digital SLRs are getting better all the time. But 
if one wants to imitate a cheapo digicam, then the highlights should be 
blown out...

>> How about the third photo on this page:
>>
>> http://www.smsu.edu/design/projects/Library2.htm
>>
>> It at least resembles Jaime's photo distantly. 
>  
> Not at all, the lighting situation is completely different - one whole 
> wall of the room is windows - even without the covering of the windows 
> Jaime's room would only have less than 1/3 of one wall as windows.

But the above picture had possibly no lights inside, Jaime's picture 
has. But ok, it was a bad example and I can't find now any better. You 
just have to believe me :)

Severi Salminen

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

> D-fence wrote:
>> As I see that you take the time to answer to many people here, I was
>> wondering if you could take some time to teach your knowledge ?
> 
>    Of course!
> 
>> like to know how you work :
>>         - do you use the GNU/Linux version of POV with a bunch of scripts
>>         or the
>> Windows version ?
> 
>    I use the Linux version, usually just from an xterm. The only script
> I use is to shorten the name, so I can type "pov scene". I use
> WindowMaker as graphic window manager, ROX filer as file manager and
> gvim as text editor. My usual work flow is to open a ROX window with the
> scene folder, double click on the scene, type into gvim, then use
> alt-tab to change to xterm where I type the command line or use the
> upper arrow to recover last call. For me it's a very simple but fast
> work cycle.
> 
>>         - do you create each object of a scene separately ?
> 
>    Hmmm... not as often as I must... I mostly use partial rendering to
> model the object "in place", but I can hardly recommend it over the
> separate scene, which is a much more serious approach.
> 
>>         - do you make a lot of render or do you work "blinded" ?
> 
>    Can I say "both"? :) Although I get what I expected most of the
> times, I still need to do a lot of test renders.
> 
>    Thanks for compliments, Christophe.
> 
> --
> Jaime

Thanks for the answers Jaime.
I'm goin to try the ROX filer and Gvim.
I used to use vim and console only and sometimes QT-PovEditor.

It's seems that the way you work is not as sharp as I thought but
apparently, you have a better control on the result than me (and probably
most of us).
I always need to render a lot of time to get a result not too far from what
I wanted.


Christophe

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

Just adding another voice to the chorus. This is incredible.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in
news:41038bdb@news.povray.org: 

> Hi all:
> 
>    I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I
>    used this 
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d,
> creating some more objects that were somewhat challenging
> to do with CSG. 
> 
>    I'm going to do the final render at this size but with
>    better 
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the
> walls upper parts. 
> 
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
> 
> --
> Jaime
> 
> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --------------050805010409030705000304
>  
> Attachment saved: N:\office-12.jpg
> --------------050805010409030705000304--


Holly cow, great work!

-- 
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videoSPAMNOTtron.DOT.ca.invalid
Montreal, Canada

Post a reply to this message

Woah!

There's a huge amount of stuff in this scene, and it's all incredibly realistic.

But... it still doesn't look real. There's a few things that stand out to me as
being wrong, though I don't know if that's what creates the overall effect of
un-realism, but in any case I'll list the things I've noticed:

A lot of the materials look perfectly smooth - the walls, the ceiling tiles and
metal strips between them, the blue-grey colour on the desks. These are all
things which would usually have some measure of bumpiness and/or imperfection.
Google found a good photo of ceiling tiles:
http://www.sachem.k12.ny.us/building_construction/Chippewa%20pictures/P1200047.JPG

The highlight on the table in the foreground looks like a simple specular
highlight which seems out of place in such a realistic scene, and inconsistent
with the sharp reflections in the desk surface (i.e. shiny surfaces have small
highlights). Maybe, if you want photorealism, try some blurred reflections.

Some other material suggestions: The screwed up paper & post-its look wrong -
probably needs sub surface scattering, the chairs look a bit hard - maybe an
anisotropic fur material would help?, the beige plastic on the PCs isn't quite
shiny enough, and the wood on the desks and shelves doesn't look like anything
I've seen on such furniture but it looks pretty realistic.

The whole office is incredibly clean, no ash in the ashtray, no coffee marks in
the mug or rings on the table, no scuff marks on the floor, water stains round
the plant pot, dust, and all the desks seem perfectly aligned. None of that is
impossible, just very unlikely.

...and that's everything I can see that's wrong with it! Personally I think the
lighting looks really good. Plus the modelling details are stunning! I'm very
impressed by the overall sense of clutter, that's incredibly hard to do in a ray
traced scene and you've done it very well. How much thought did you put into the
chair positions? They seem very natural.

Hope that's of some use to you. It really is an awesome image.

-- 
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Hughes, B. wrote:
> Reached epic proportions with this one, Jaime.

   Thanks! :)

> I like the subtle things, like the planter diffusing the sunlight onto the
> phone and also back there at the file cabinet onto the bookcase.

   That was not planed, as you surely know...

> Maybe everyone was laid off work until they learn to stop rendering with POV
> on their computers? Looks like the nearest monitor shows this very scene in
> POV-Ray, so perhaps the others are network-rendering.

   No, everyone is coming late because they know the boss is not going 
to be there this morning. :)

> Trying to think of what might could use a change... Those fluorescent
> lights, possibly. I'd expect them to show the actual bulbs, with a
> blue-green glow in the diffuser panels, since there's sunlight illuminating
> the picture. Also, the ceiling panels could be textured, as many usually
> are.

   Here in Valencia it's more typical to have panels like the ones you 
describe, which a have a sort of diffuser grid instead a flat plastic 
cover hiding the tubes. But of course the later was much easier to do... 
anyhow, you made me try the other kind:

   http://www.ignorancia.org/images/personal/office-13.jpg

   I tried also to decorate the ceiling panels, but radiosity didn't 
like it... all sort of artifacts appeared, so I left them untextured. 
I've also increased the sunlight intensity to please Christoph. :)

   Thanks for the comments!

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message

emkaah wrote:
> Very, very impressive. The only unrealisting thing I can see is that the 
> office is too clean. Especially if this is in Spain. I mean, Spain, and 
> only one tiny bit of paper next to the bin, yeah right :). But again, 
> very impressive.

   Ah... spanish offices are no more what they used to be. Now 
everything is clean and people don't smoke. I've heard that now they 
even work occasionally! :)

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
[message saved as /home/jaime/raytracing/scenes/office/to-do.txt]

   ...and I thought I was finished with this one!

   Many thanks for the good and detail criticism, it must be really 
useful if I decide to do one more final render.


--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message
news:4109f79b$1@news.povray.org...
> Hughes, B. wrote:
>
> > Trying to think of what might could use a change... Those fluorescent
> > lights, possibly. I'd expect them to show the actual bulbs, with a
> > blue-green glow in the diffuser panels, since there's sunlight
illuminating
> > the picture. Also, the ceiling panels could be textured, as many usually
> > are.
>
>    Here in Valencia it's more typical to have panels like the ones you
> describe, which a have a sort of diffuser grid instead a flat plastic
> cover hiding the tubes. But of course the later was much easier to do...
> anyhow, you made me try the other kind:
>
>    http://www.ignorancia.org/images/personal/office-13.jpg
>
>    I tried also to decorate the ceiling panels, but radiosity didn't
> like it... all sort of artifacts appeared, so I left them untextured.
> I've also increased the sunlight intensity to please Christoph. :)

Hey now, that's so much better than seeing only blank light panels. Really
improves it.

What were your radiosity settings? Must be a way to clean up those walls.
Seems to me that recursion_limit shouldn't be too high. I like using 2 most
because of how 3 or more tends to react negatively in shadowed places. And
error_bound should be kept low (I like 0.2). Are you loading a saved
radiosity file with always_sample on to try and refine it?

Looking at POV's rad_def.inc file for an example, it has a small
pretrace_end for indoor high quality. All the choices have half of default
adc_bailout.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Hughes, B. wrote:
> Hey now, that's so much better than seeing only blank light panels. Really
> improves it.

   I'm glad you like it.

> What were your radiosity settings? Must be a way to clean up those walls.
> Seems to me that recursion_limit shouldn't be too high. I like using 2 most
> because of how 3 or more tends to react negatively in shadowed places. And
> error_bound should be kept low (I like 0.2). Are you loading a saved
> radiosity file with always_sample on to try and refine it?
> 

   Radiosity setting were the following:

   pretrace_start .05 pretrace_end .01
   count 250
   nearest_count 10
   error_bound .5
   recursion_limit 1

    On the WIP 12 count was only 150. Increasing it on WIP 13 helped, 
but not much. I will try your suggestions and some more things... will see.

   Thanks!

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>   Radiosity setting were the following:
> 
>   pretrace_start .05 pretrace_end .01
>   count 250
>   nearest_count 10
>   error_bound .5
>   recursion_limit 1
> 
>    On the WIP 12 count was only 150. Increasing it on WIP 13 helped, but 
> not much. I will try your suggestions and some more things... will see.

Try a reduced low_error_factor (0.3 or 0.2) with a lower pretrace_end. 
If that gets too slow use lower nearest_count.

Weren't you usually using a two pass method for your scenes?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Wait, are you saying that  image is NOT a photograph???

How long did it take to render?

--
- Nicolas Alvarez
nicoalvar0 [at] hotmail [dot] com

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> escribió en el mensaje
news:41038bdb@news.povray.org...
> Hi all:
>
>    I got my old office scene finished thanks to Wings3d. I used this
> scene to practice/discover techniques with Wings3d, creating some more
> objects that were somewhat challenging to do with CSG.
>
>    I'm going to do the final render at this size but with better
> radiosity settings, to get ride of the artifacts on the walls upper
parts.
>
> P.S.: Yes, the boss in not coming to the office today... ;)
>
> --
> Jaime
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Try a reduced low_error_factor (0.3 or 0.2) with a lower pretrace_end. 
> If that gets too slow use lower nearest_count.

   Thanks for the tips... I will try them.

> Weren't you usually using a two pass method for your scenes?

   Yes, these were the settings for the first pass. The second pass uses 
the same settings for the load, but with always_sample off and a little 
increase of brightness.

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Wait, are you saying that  image is NOT a photograph???

   It can't be... at least to my knowledge, no one ever published a 
magazine called  POVMAG. :)

> How long did it take to render?

   It's on the signature: about 10 hours.

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> Try a reduced low_error_factor (0.3 or 0.2) with a lower pretrace_end. 
>> If that gets too slow use lower nearest_count.
> 
> 
>   Thanks for the tips... I will try them.
> 
>> Weren't you usually using a two pass method for your scenes?
> 
> 
>   Yes, these were the settings for the first pass. The second pass uses 
> the same settings for the load, but with always_sample off and a little 
> increase of brightness.

Well - then forget about low_error_factor, just use a lower error_bound 
in the first pass.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Very very good looking. (I can never get my scenes to look "sunny" like 
that... *sigh*) Only real critisism is the light cast on the pillar in 
the middle - surely it shouldn't look quite that sharp...

Andrew @ home.

Post a reply to this message