"Sabrina Kilian" <"ykgp <at> wrote in message 
news:462052bc$1@news.povray.org...
> All of this could be because I am picturing how this would look from a
> camera up close with a wide angle lens, not a far off zoom. I'll put a
> marble on my desk again, and find a telephoto lens, and see what I think
> then.

Hmm... my camera might not be as zoomed as I thought, here's a render with 
blur from a 35mm aperture. It's easily enough to tie the background to the 
foreground.

But I think it's too blurry, so I'm gonna build some background objects.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'before+after.1-pp.jpg' (85 KB)

Preview of image 'before+after.1-pp.jpg'

Fantastic image Tek! However, I think the border should be wider? If you 
think of 1/2"...

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:

> But I think it's too blurry, so I'm gonna build some background objects.

Maybe you are taking photorealism too far. If it's to blurry,
why don't you just reduce the blur? Just think of the number
of blur_samples you'll need to make this look good anyway ;)

I suppose camera manufacturers would happily build cameras which show
less blur if they could (well, in fact you can take multiple images
with different focus and combine them in software).

Post a reply to this message

> Maybe you are taking photorealism too far. If it's to blurry,
> why don't you just reduce the blur? Just think of the number
> of blur_samples you'll need to make this look good anyway ;)

On a similar note, when I first looked at the image, I thought "That 
shadow needs an area light!" Then I realized that I've spent so much 
time indoors with fluorescent light that shadows from sunlight look 
wrong to me. >_<

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy wrote:

> On a similar note, when I first looked at the image, I thought "That 
> shadow needs an area light!" Then I realized that I've spent so much 
> time indoors with fluorescent light that shadows from sunlight look 
> wrong to me.

Actually, the sun appears as a disk, not as a point light, so
a circular area light would be quite appropriate. But who knows,
maybe the final version will use a sky dome, the HDRI is there ;)

Post a reply to this message

> Actually, the sun appears as a disk, not as a point light, so
> a circular area light would be quite appropriate. But who knows,
> maybe the final version will use a sky dome, the HDRI is there ;)

But the sun is so far away that it still generates pretty sharp shadows 
(compared to indoor lighting).

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you are certain that if 
you see one more post on c.g.r.r. from a newbie asking what the best 
raytracing software available is you're going to go out and throttle the 
hell out of someone just to get it out of your system.
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Well real cameras have adjustable apertures, a photo taken outdoors in 
fairly bright sunlight would not usually have the aperture open far enough 
for this much blur, though it is possible with a filter. I just wanted to 
get an upper limit for maximum possible blur within the bounds of reality. 
Since it's more blur than I need I'm safely inside the bounds of reality 
with whatever setting I choose!

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Christian Froeschlin" <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote in message 
news:46215631$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>
>> But I think it's too blurry, so I'm gonna build some background objects.
>
> Maybe you are taking photorealism too far. If it's to blurry,
> why don't you just reduce the blur? Just think of the number
> of blur_samples you'll need to make this look good anyway ;)
>
> I suppose camera manufacturers would happily build cameras which show
> less blur if they could (well, in fact you can take multiple images
> with different focus and combine them in software).

Post a reply to this message

Apparently, according to wikipedia, the sun's disk has a diameter of around 
0.5 degrees from our point of view. That's equivalent to an area light at a 
distance of 1 unit having a width of 0.0087 units, which is really not very 
much blur. I'm using about 3 times more area_light blur than is realistic.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message 
news:46217c76@news.povray.org...
>> Actually, the sun appears as a disk, not as a point light, so
>> a circular area light would be quite appropriate. But who knows,
>> maybe the final version will use a sky dome, the HDRI is there ;)
>
> But the sun is so far away that it still generates pretty sharp shadows 
> (compared to indoor lighting).
>
> -- 
> William Tracy
> afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
>
> You know you've been raytracing too long when you are certain that if you 
> see one more post on c.g.r.r. from a newbie asking what the best 
> raytracing software available is you're going to go out and throttle the 
> hell out of someone just to get it out of your system.
> Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Apparently, according to wikipedia, the sun's disk has a diameter of around 
> 0.5 degrees from our point of view. 

Except that back-scattering off the atmosphere provides a much larger 
area of light. Contrast the sky with the moon vs the sun, both of which 
are about the same size. It's difficult to even look close to the sun on 
a clear day.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     His kernel fu is strong.
     He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.

Post a reply to this message

The reason it's hard to look at the sun is it's brighter than the moon. 
Nonetheless with the right filter you can clearly see the sun's disk, which 
means the disk itself is significantly brighter than light scattered by the 
atmosphere. So I'll use an area light for the disc, and the radiosity from 
my HDR dome will handle the light from the sky.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4621a037$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> Apparently, according to wikipedia, the sun's disk has a diameter of 
>> around 0.5 degrees from our point of view.
>
> Except that back-scattering off the atmosphere provides a much larger area 
> of light. Contrast the sky with the moon vs the sun, both of which are 
> about the same size. It's difficult to even look close to the sun on a 
> clear day.
>
> -- 
>   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>     His kernel fu is strong.
>     He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.

Post a reply to this message