 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:20:53 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com>
wrote:
Nice image!
>Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
>blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
>
>aperture 0.09
>blur_samples 150
>focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
>confidence 0.95
>variance 1/256
I'd suggest reducing the aperture a bit to increase the depth of field. The
background looks too blurry to me. You should be able to find a happy medium where
the background is out of focus enough
to hide the lack of details that you have mentioned, but a little sharper that it is
now. It's really all up to your artistic preferences, though. :-) You can increase
the blur samples to reduce
the graininess.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Changed the sky to something a bit more realistic (The previous one was my
> poor attempt at a sunrise)
>
> Changed the camera angle slightly
>
> Increased the amount of surface mist.
>
> Comments?
Looks great. It's probably just this LCD I'm viewing it on, but my only
problem with it is the transition from the hills to the sky. It looks a
bit like someone was taking a long exposure photo and bumped the camera
halfway through. I think that one edge needs more blur, or maybe turn down
the contrast just a bit.
The trees go very nicely into the fog and the hills, but the contrast is
lower there... I'm not quite sure how to suggest a fix either, OTOH as I
said at the start, it might not even be a real problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaime Vives Piqueres
Subject: Re: Lady of the Lake, version 2 (100kbu)
Date: 2 Feb 2007 16:14:57
Message: <45c3a9d1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
> blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
IIRC, "variance 0" gives usually less grain, but it's very slow with
so many samples.
Great image, BTW!
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Lady of the Lake, version 2 (100kbu)
Date: 3 Feb 2007 03:18:49
Message: <45c44569@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I like this version better!
The sky is beautiful. The banding Stephen mentioned is probably due to (one
of) the fog(s) in the distance. Just a guess. I seem to have experienced
something similar in the past.
I am not a very big fan of focal blur, but here it is very effective indeed.
Well done!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> aperture 0.09
> blur_samples 150
> focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
> confidence 0.95
> variance 1/256
I think your variance is good, but you should increase the confidence. Right
now, for each pixel you're 95% sure that it's within 1/256 of the color it
should be. You want to be much more sure than that. You may also have to
increase the blur_samples in order to achieve the confidence you specify.
And if all else fails, just set confidence 1 varience 0 and it will do the
specified number of blur_samples for every pixel.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:28:16 EST, "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
>> news:web.45c3535fc96678e2f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> > I like this better, particularly the moon and the mist. I like the sky, on
>> > my work's monitor it looks subtly stratified at the top, nice.
>>
>> Thanks. I'm not sure why the banding is there. The sky is a solid colour and
>> 2 ground fogs with very high distance
>
>Can you see it in the original? Looks good to me.
>
Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that would
make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
I much prefer the new camera position.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:21:05 -0800, "Slime" <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
>And if all else fails, just set confidence 1 varience 0 and it will do the
>specified number of blur_samples for every pixel.
Actually, a confidence value of 1 is invalid. POV-Ray will display a warning message
and default to
a confidence value of 0.9, at least in version 3.6. Reference section "3.3.1.3 Focal
Blur" in the
manual.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:nrp8s2huclp1a4b0jk6brg6tqhljslofk3@4ax.com...
> Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that
would
> make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
I can see a bit on the original image, but I have to zoom in massivly to see
it.
> I much prefer the new camera position.
Thanks. Me too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:10:43 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot
com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
>news:nrp8s2huclp1a4b0jk6brg6tqhljslofk3@4ax.com...
>
>> Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that
>would
>> make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
>
>I can see a bit on the original image, but I have to zoom in massivly to see
>it.
>
At home I saw it in psp by "find all edges" then "enhance edges more". Bah!
Cheap monitors.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
