I need your expert comments :-)

This is the first serious render of the scene with radiosity. It is a 2-pass 
job (first gathering radiosity data on an image half the size of this one; 
took about 5+ hours; second pass was just about 45 minutes). There are still 
ugly artifacts visible, especially on the columns. What is the best way to 
go from here? I include the radiosity settings used so far. Normal and media 
are off; Megapov settings were used

Thanks for the help!!

Thomas

//==== start code ====
      radiosity {
        //saving radiosity data:
        #if (RadSave)
          save_file "Oreille2.rad"
          pretrace_start 0.01
          pretrace_end   0.005
          nearest_count 6
          always_sample on
          #if (MPov)
            samples 1
            adaptive 2
            error_bound {0.1 adaptive 1.5, 50}
          #else
            error_bound 0.1
          #end

        //reading radiosity data:
        #else
          load_file "Oreille2.rad"
          pretrace_start 1
          pretrace_end 1
          nearest_count 6
          always_sample off
          #if (MPov)
             samples 1
             adaptive 1
             error_bound {0.1 adaptive 1.8, 20}
          #else
             error_bound 0.1
          #end
        #end

        //common settings:
        low_error_factor 0.5
        gray_threshold 0
        adc_bailout 0.01/2
        minimum_reuse 0.015
        count 150
        brightness 1.0
        recursion_limit 3
        normal Nor
        media Med

      }
//==== end code ====

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Eavesdropping_wip06.jpg' (58 KB)

Preview of image 'Eavesdropping_wip06.jpg'

Is that texturing you added to the columns and tiles or is that the 
artifacting?  If it is, it almost looks like a nice texture.  ;)

Typically I drop the recursion limit down to 1 or 2 and jack the count 
setting way up.  Although a significant portion of your image is in the 
shadow, and with the nooks and crannies in the architecture you are 
using, keeping it at 3 is probably best.  You might want to try 2 and 
see if you can get away with it.  The reason you'd want to lower it is 
to save time, because your count is way too low.  I'd bump up to 1000 at 
least, and at a recursion limit of 3 thats going to take forever.

The biggest factor here might be your error bound.  A value of 0.1 is 
very accurate and requires a very high count (and ages to render). 
Maxing out at 1600 you are still going to see artifacts probably.  I'd 
raise that up to at least 0.5 and you might want to go all the way to 1. 
  Your lighting won't be as accurate but it will be much smoother. 
Remember, as your error bound lowers, the count has to go up.

Nearest count could also be increased to take a few artifacts out.

Skip

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I need your expert comments :-)
> 
> This is the first serious render of the scene with radiosity. It is a 2-pass 
> job (first gathering radiosity data on an image half the size of this one; 
> took about 5+ hours; second pass was just about 45 minutes). There are still 
> ugly artifacts visible, especially on the columns. What is the best way to 
> go from here? I include the radiosity settings used so far. Normal and media 
> are off; Megapov settings were used

Well, what I usually do when using the two-pass method, is to use a 
lower error_bound on the first pass, and double or quadruple (always 2 
with an exponent attached) the error_bound on the loading pass. What 
this does is average more of the samples together, in effect smoothening 
the radiosity results somewhat. Of course this leads to loss of details, 
but detailed errors are smoothened away as well. You could have a look 
at my website as well, I've experimented a little with radiosity some 
time back:
http://www.nolights.de/projects/radiosity/radiosity.html

Hope that helps, even if just a little.

Regards,
Tim

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

Post a reply to this message

"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
news:45098a9f$1@news.povray.org...
> Is that texturing you added to the columns and tiles or is that the 
> artifacting?  If it is, it almost looks like a nice texture.  ;)

    That's what I wanted to say! Really, I admire Thomas' work, but I too 
have no experience with Rad, and consequently, don't know what an 'artifact' 
is. When they're spoken of, I always find it hard to see what the author is 
seeing.

      I actually see this image as an improvement on the last one. It looks 
good to me.

       ~Steve~


> Skip

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I need your expert comments :-)
> 
> This is the first serious render of the scene with radiosity. It is a 2-pass 
> job (first gathering radiosity data on an image half the size of this one; 
> took about 5+ hours; second pass was just about 45 minutes). There are still 
> ugly artifacts visible, especially on the columns. What is the best way to 
> go from here? I include the radiosity settings used so far. Normal and media 
> are off; Megapov settings were used

I don't understand your use of the MegaPOV adaptive error_bound - if you 
use it in the first pass you will loose control over the accuracy of the 
radiosity data taken and stored.  Furthermore using tighter settings in 
the final pass will increase the number of samples taken there (and 
using always_sample off at the same time could lead to low quality).

I would try to decrease recursion_limit to 2 and use the saved time to 
improve quality if that does not change the appearance too much.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 20 Aug. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Thomas,
I'm curious about this fascinating scene...
  lateen rigged caravel
  collosal greco/roman pillars
  traditional chinese laborer's hat
Where? When?

DLM

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:45097171@news.povray.org...
>I need your expert comments :-)
>
> This is the first serious render of the scene with radiosity. It is a 
> 2-pass job (first gathering radiosity data on an image half the size of 
> this one; took about 5+ hours; second pass was just about 45 minutes). 
> There are still ugly artifacts visible, especially on the columns. What is 
> the best way to go from here? I include the radiosity settings used so 
> far. Normal and media are off; Megapov settings were used
>
> Thanks for the help!!
>
> Thomas
>
> //==== start code ====
>      radiosity {
>        //saving radiosity data:
>        #if (RadSave)
>          save_file "Oreille2.rad"
>          pretrace_start 0.01
>          pretrace_end   0.005
>          nearest_count 6
>          always_sample on
>          #if (MPov)
>            samples 1
>            adaptive 2
>            error_bound {0.1 adaptive 1.5, 50}
>          #else
>            error_bound 0.1
>          #end
>
>        //reading radiosity data:
>        #else
>          load_file "Oreille2.rad"
>          pretrace_start 1
>          pretrace_end 1
>          nearest_count 6
>          always_sample off
>          #if (MPov)
>             samples 1
>             adaptive 1
>             error_bound {0.1 adaptive 1.8, 20}
>          #else
>             error_bound 0.1
>          #end
>        #end
>
>        //common settings:
>        low_error_factor 0.5
>        gray_threshold 0
>        adc_bailout 0.01/2
>        minimum_reuse 0.015
>        count 150
>        brightness 1.0
>        recursion_limit 3
>        normal Nor
>        media Med
>
>      }
> //==== end code ====
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:4509911a@news.povray.org...
>
> "Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
> news:45098a9f$1@news.povray.org...
>> Is that texturing you added to the columns and tiles or is that the 
>> artifacting?  If it is, it almost looks like a nice texture.  ;)
>
>    That's what I wanted to say! Really, I admire Thomas' work, but I too 
> have no experience with Rad, and consequently, don't know what an 
> 'artifact' is. When they're spoken of, I always find it hard to see what 
> the author is seeing.
>

Yes, a good question Skip and Steve! I am not sure what it is. I use an 
averaged texture for the columns and I think that partly it is texture what 
you see. But only partly. I suspect them to be mostly artifacts because the 
texture without any radiosity or fancy adds looks much smoother, especially 
at the middle distance.

>      I actually see this image as an improvement on the last one. It looks 
> good to me.
>
Thank you Steve! I thought so too. I always try to put radiosity in because 
the look becomes more natural. However, the render times and the tuning of 
it is really arduous in my experience.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schreef in bericht 
news:eec9lp$llh$1@chho.imagico.de...
>
> I don't understand your use of the MegaPOV adaptive error_bound - if you 
> use it in the first pass you will loose control over the accuracy of the 
> radiosity data taken and stored.  Furthermore using tighter settings in 
> the final pass will increase the number of samples taken there (and using 
> always_sample off at the same time could lead to low quality).
>
Thanks Christoph! I had not realised the consequences of the adaptive 
error_bound in the first pass. Quite simply I thought it would - at the same 
time - speed up calculations and increase accuracy! Well well well... Things 
are never as simple as one believes...

> I would try to decrease recursion_limit to 2 and use the saved time to 
> improve quality if that does not change the appearance too much.
>
Yes, the recursion_limit is an issue I have been thinking about. I had 
already tried as a test a value of 1 but that was ugly.

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"dlm" <me### [at] addressinvalid> schreef in bericht 
news:4509b646$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas,
> I'm curious about this fascinating scene...
>  lateen rigged caravel
>  collosal greco/roman pillars
>  traditional chinese laborer's hat
> Where? When?
>

He he!! Yes... all that is true. This is an a-historic mixture of elements 
from different cultures and different times.
- The ship in the background is, I believe, a fairly recent (perhaps 19th 
century) Mediterranean ship;
- The ships at the quay are ancient Greek merchant ships. The model is based 
on the one found at Kyrenia (Cyprus).
- Pillars: This is a reconstruction of the Greek temple of Apollo at Dydima 
(Turkey). In fact it is in a state it never was in reality, as the 
construction was never finished after a last earthquake destroyed part of 
the work.
- Chinese hat: yes, or rather: a variation upon the chinese hat;
- one could add: clothings that reminds of the mythical Middle East of 
Haroun Al Rachid;

...So.... it is a story, a myth, a dream... whatever you want... :-)
Still, I feel it important that the elements seem to go together, and blend 
into a credible scene.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> schreef in bericht 
news:45098c3c@news.povray.org...
>
> Well, what I usually do when using the two-pass method, is to use a lower 
> error_bound on the first pass, and double or quadruple (always 2 with an 
> exponent attached) the error_bound on the loading pass. What this does is 
> average more of the samples together, in effect smoothening the radiosity 
> results somewhat. Of course this leads to loss of details, but detailed 
> errors are smoothened away as well. You could have a look at my website as 
> well, I've experimented a little with radiosity some time back:
> http://www.nolights.de/projects/radiosity/radiosity.html
>

Thank you Tim, I shall visit again your site. Everything helps. I try to 
understand what I am doing especially by studying what others have done, 
however with radiosity this is not always easy.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:4509911a@news.povray.org...
>
>
>    That's what I wanted to say! Really, I admire Thomas' work, but I too 
> have no experience with Rad, and consequently, don't know what an 
> 'artifact' is. When they're spoken of, I always find it hard to see what 
> the author is seeing.
>
I did not answer fully your comment. Sorry for that.
Apart from the column shafts, you can see those black spots towards the 
base, on the horizontal surface just below the torus. Those are definitely 
artefacts. So, although I feel not happy about the shafts, the image is 
almost there.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

This is almost 'perfect' :-)
Still a bit of artifacts visible, but not much.
Essentially, what I have changed since the preceding render are:
increasing nearest_count to 10
increasing error_bound at 0.5 in the first pass
increasing low_error_factor to 0.9
increasing count to 250
decreasing recursion_limit to 2
decreasing brightness to 0.8 in the second pass

...and I gained a couple of hours at the first pass! So I can use that to 
increase count even more.

Again, many thanks to all for your very helpful comments!!
People! listen carefully to your betters!!!  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Eavesdropping_wip07.jpg' (52 KB)

Preview of image 'Eavesdropping_wip07.jpg'

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:450ac173@news.povray.org...
> This is almost 'perfect' :-)

    Agreed. This is looking much better! And yes, I now see where the 
artefacts were.  ;)

     But, you've got to do something about that texture (on the lower 
pillars), because it looked SO good in your other image! Perhaps some kind 
of procedural crackle might do it? (Not sure).

       ~Steve~




> Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> ...So.... it is a story, a myth, a dream... whatever you want... :-)
> Still, I feel it important that the elements seem to go together, and blend 
> into a credible scene.
> 
Thanks to Gena, we know it's a "Capriccio"

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Again, many thanks to all for your very helpful comments!!
> People! listen carefully to your betters!!!  :-)
> 
>
Oh, and what do you know? I have been "eavesdropping" on *that* little 
conversation.

With the technical problems gone, this image takes on a compelling 
narrative interest. Figure gestures, camera angle, and so on. Nice work. 
  Don't know where all this is coming from, or going to, but I love it. 
  Are your images collected anywhere such that we might see the development?

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is almost 'perfect' :-)
> Still a bit of artifacts visible, but not much.
> Essentially, what I have changed since the preceding render are:
> increasing nearest_count to 10
> increasing error_bound at 0.5 in the first pass
> increasing low_error_factor to 0.9
> increasing count to 250
> decreasing recursion_limit to 2
> decreasing brightness to 0.8 in the second pass

It looks much better (although difficult to judge at this small size) 
but under the aspect of the argument i gave concerning the adaptive 
error_bound using a higher one in the pretrace than in the final trace 
is counterproductive.  Of course the adaptation will automatically 
increase it in the final pass but this will make it slower than 
necessary.  If you set the starting value of the adaptation to the same 
as in the pretrace this will probably make it quite a bit faster and not 
much worse (although it is difficult to say for sure). Since there have 
not been a lot of tests made with the adaptive error_bound it might be 
interesting to see the (non-jpeg-compressed) results of this in 
comparison.   If you could quote the number of samples taken in pretrace 
and in the final pass that would also help to say if these assumptions 
are correct.

BTW using different brightness in two passes is handled by POV-Ray AFAIK 
but there is not much point in doing this.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 20 Aug. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:450af2a3$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> ...So.... it is a story, a myth, a dream... whatever you want... :-)
>> Still, I feel it important that the elements seem to go together, and 
>> blend into a credible scene.
>>
> Thanks to Gena, we know it's a "Capriccio"

Thanks Jim! That is exactly the right description. Forgot about Gena's.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:450af426$1@news.povray.org...
.
>
> With the technical problems gone, this image takes on a compelling 
> narrative interest. Figure gestures, camera angle, and so on. Nice work. 
> Don't know where all this is coming from, or going to, but I love it. Are 
> your images collected anywhere such that we might see the development?

Thank you indeed, Jim! It is going in the direction I want it to go.
I have no idea where the image is coming from. It is one of those typical 
hunches/visions I often have about scenes, stories, projects. Most of the 
time, it comes to nothing; sometimes I try to keep a record on them; in a 
few instances they turn into images, stories, or projects. It depends very 
much on how compelling the hunches really are. Sometimes the vision is so 
compelling that I work on it for a couple of days/weeks, totally mesmerized, 
like if somebody was dictating me what to do (sounds familiar?) and then 
most often, it remains dormant for a long time.... or forever.
Quite possibly, this images is going to turn into a short story one day, or 
become part of a larger whole. I don't know. With a friend, we write an 
unending stream of short stories (in Portuguese), sometimes based on 
randomly selected old photographs or pictures. It's fun to do. 
Interestingly, before even knowing about Gilles Tran's Book of Beginnings, I 
had started something similar but with finished very short texts around an 
image. It too started suddenly as a hunch.
I am working on a website where (part of) my work will be on display. I 
admit that I started it already years and years ago, but since a few weeks 
it seems to pick up speed. So... be patient.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:450ae56f$1@news.povray.org...
>
>     But, you've got to do something about that texture (on the lower 
> pillars), because it looked SO good in your other image! Perhaps some kind 
> of procedural crackle might do it? (Not sure).
>
Steve, I am not sure I get your meaning. The texture is not looking so much 
different from the non-radiosity image I believe. There is already a (agate) 
turbulence/normal controlling the layered, averaged texture (visible on the 
closest pillar to the left). Towards the middle distance this becomes 
necessarily less visible. The same would hold for a crackle (for instance), 
so you would not really see it. And then, radiosity is also playing its part 
here.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schreef in bericht 
news:eeesuu$npn$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> This is almost 'perfect' :-)
>> Still a bit of artifacts visible, but not much.
>> Essentially, what I have changed since the preceding render are:
>> increasing nearest_count to 10
>> increasing error_bound at 0.5 in the first pass
>> increasing low_error_factor to 0.9
>> increasing count to 250
>> decreasing recursion_limit to 2
>> decreasing brightness to 0.8 in the second pass
>
> It looks much better (although difficult to judge at this small size) but 
> under the aspect of the argument i gave concerning the adaptive 
> error_bound using a higher one in the pretrace than in the final trace is 
> counterproductive.  Of course the adaptation will automatically increase 
> it in the final pass but this will make it slower than necessary.  If you 
> set the starting value of the adaptation to the same as in the pretrace 
> this will probably make it quite a bit faster and not much worse (although 
> it is difficult to say for sure). Since there have not been a lot of tests 
> made with the adaptive error_bound it might be interesting to see the 
> (non-jpeg-compressed) results of this in comparison.   If you could quote 
> the number of samples taken in pretrace and in the final pass that would 
> also help to say if these assumptions are correct.
>
Thanks Christoph. I much appreciate your comments as I feel that I still 
have a lot to learn about this matter. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but I 
find this a difficult matter to understand, despite the excellent tutorials, 
by the way, of you and others.
Let's see if I get this correctly.
Concerning error_bound, what I should do is (for instance):
error_bound 0.5 //first pass
error_bound {0.5 adaptive 1.5, 20} //second pass
OK? The quality of the results might then dictate using 0.5 or lower (or 
higher, to see where acceptable boundaries are).
My initial assumption was that by making error_bound adaptive (at least in 
the final pass) megapov would determine automatically what the necessary 
values were, thus gaining time and quality.

I saved the message files fortunately. These are the number of samples taken 
during pretrace:
Radiosity samples calculated:           424116 (1.34 %)
Radiosity samples reused:             31208079
  Samples (final trace)                  59336
  Samples (recursion 1)                  78012
  Samples (recursion 2)                 346104

And these of the samples taken during the second pass:
Radiosity samples calculated:            65094 (1.16 %)
Radiosity samples reused:              5549135
  Samples (final trace)                  64420
  Samples (recursion 1)                   7061
  Samples (recursion 2)                  58033

With the changes to error_bound, I shall make a new render and post both 
images (the present one and the new one) together in png format.

> BTW using different brightness in two passes is handled by POV-Ray AFAIK 
> but there is not much point in doing this.
>
Oh? I confess I followed the teachings of  Tim Nikias in this matter.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

This is a test with the two settings for error_bound, all other settings 
being equal. The images here are uncompressed jpg.

the image to the left, is the original one, with:
error_bound 0.5 //first pass
error_bound {0.1 adaptive 1.5, 20} //second pass

The image to the right has the settings:
error_bound 0.5 //first pass
error_bound {0.5 adaptive 1.5, 20} //second pass

samples for this image were:
Radiosity samples calculated:             1124 (0.03 %)
Radiosity samples reused:              3571781
  Samples (final trace)                   1124
  Samples (recursion 1)                    188
  Samples (recursion 2)                    936

and render time about 20 minutes.

The image to the right is the better of the two IMO.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Eavesdropper_wip7test.jpg' (357 KB)

Preview of image 'Eavesdropper_wip7test.jpg'

I like your image, but I find one thing odd...
the eavesdropper is looking almost directly
into the sun.

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] comcastnet> schreef in bericht 
news:450bf1bf$1@news.povray.org...
>I like your image, but I find one thing odd...
> the eavesdropper is looking almost directly
> into the sun.
>
Yes, well he could not choose his spot obviously :-) Must certainly be 
unconfortable, to say the least...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
> Thanks Christoph. I much appreciate your comments as I feel that I still 
> have a lot to learn about this matter. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but I 
> find this a difficult matter to understand, despite the excellent tutorials, 
> by the way, of you and others.
> Let's see if I get this correctly.
> Concerning error_bound, what I should do is (for instance):
> error_bound 0.5 //first pass
> error_bound {0.5 adaptive 1.5, 20} //second pass
> OK? The quality of the results might then dictate using 0.5 or lower (or 
> higher, to see where acceptable boundaries are).

Yes, you should notice however that the interaction between those 
settings can be quite complicated and especially error_bound (which is 
relevant both when taking and when reusing samples) can have quite 
unexpected effects.  So it is possible that what you used has some 
positive effect in some situations.  It would be a pretty advanced 
experiment however. :-)

> My initial assumption was that by making error_bound adaptive (at least in 
> the final pass) megapov would determine automatically what the necessary 
> values were, thus gaining time and quality.

Error_bound is a user quality setting - there is no way for POV-Ray to 
determine it automatically.  What the adaptation does is modifying the 
error_bound to avoid taking additional samples.  But as said the 
interactions with other settings are complicated so the influences on 
the render results can be as well.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 20 Aug. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:450bb0c8$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:450ae56f$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>     But, you've got to do something about that texture (on the lower 
>> pillars), because it looked SO good in your other image!

 (The rad artefact image).


Perhaps some kind
>> of procedural crackle might do it? (Not sure).
>>
> Steve, I am not sure I get your meaning.

   I'm just saying that what happened with the rad artefacts is exactly what 
you want for those pillar textures, that's all. Now replicate them somehow.


     ~Steve~



>
> Thomas
>

Post a reply to this message

Also, (and I'm not being picky here), compared to the people, that rope is 
a heavy rope - and it should be laying flat against the ground (where the 
sunlight hits it).

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:450c2eea@news.povray.org...
>  Also, (and I'm not being picky here), compared to the people, that rope 
> is a heavy rope - and it should be laying flat against the ground (where 
> the sunlight hits it).
>
Arrgh!!! You noticed!!! :-(
Yes, you a re perfectly right. That comes from the difficulty to get the 
rope coming from the ceiling, to bend correctly and lie flat. Either I 
should add more control points to the spline, or make two separate ropes. It 
is something I have still to do.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:450c2b54@news.povray.org...
>
>
>   I'm just saying that what happened with the rad artefacts is exactly 
> what you want for those pillar textures, that's all. Now replicate them 
> somehow.
>
>
Yes, I see... Well, I am not that happy about the idea of an 'artifact'-type 
texture. I prefer something smoother ans mor subtle.
But the idea is still an interesting one. I have to think about alternatives 
for other scenes :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi Thomas:

   Not what you asked for, but I've a composition comment: I think the 
"eavesdropping" effect would be even better if you can make the figure 
pose more like if it were trying to hide behind the column, perhaps 
leaning on the column with the left hand?

   Great work...

--

Jaime

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht 
news:450e6cf8@news.povray.org...
> Hi Thomas:
>
>   Not what you asked for, but I've a composition comment: I think the 
> "eavesdropping" effect would be even better if you can make the figure 
> pose more like if it were trying to hide behind the column, perhaps 
> leaning on the column with the left hand?
>
>   Great work...
>
Thank you Jaime!! Much appreciated!!
Yes, you are right and I am working on a version where the figure is indeed 
leaning on the column like you suggest. I think it was Janet who said 
something in the same line a couple of wips ago. These wips were mainly to 
solve the radiosity and other problems (the rope for example, which is now 
solved).
I am now going to work seriously on the figure again.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> I am now going to work seriously on the figure again.
The composition is elegant, and the textures are very nice (always one of
your strengths), but I think the figures are still a little stiff *
stylised. Did you know Poser 5 is now available free? It was a big
improvement in naturalism over Poser 4. Poser 6 is even better, but the
bugs and technical problems make it very frustrating to use.

Post a reply to this message

"Joanne Simpson" <cor### [at] onewhiteravencom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.45111c65c506d8bc3caff7290@news.povray.org...
>> I am now going to work seriously on the figure again.
> The composition is elegant, and the textures are very nice (always one of
> your strengths), but I think the figures are still a little stiff *
> stylised. Did you know Poser 5 is now available free? It was a big
> improvement in naturalism over Poser 4. Poser 6 is even better, but the
> bugs and technical problems make it very frustrating to use.
>
>
Thank you indeed, Joanne! Much appreciated.
Yes, I am aware about the figures. To tell the truth, I did the poses 
rapidly in Daz|Studio without too much thinking and more intuitively. There 
certainly is much more room for improvement. If I am not too lazy and/or 
taken up by other projects (like the IRTC).
I was aware of Poser 5 being free (until sept 4th; now it is sold very 
cheap), but I hesitate (still) because I do not like to fill in a whole form 
with personal info for ContentParadise's Passport.

I still can develop a lot more with Daz, but I'll have to reserve time for 
that :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message