 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] ignorancia org> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
