 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> schreef in bericht news:462288bd$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> I like this Thomas! The scene has an eeriness about it - I mean, is she
> looking at YOU? Or, is she trying to spot something she 'may' have seen
> whilst you are crouching down trying to keep as still as possible?
> <spooky!>
>
>
Thank you Steve!
Well, I don't know what/or who Cathy is looking at. Maybe the drops of water
falling from the stalactite? But most probably at something behind the
camera, where the light comes from... I have no idea, and I would like to
turn around, but I cannot.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> schreef in bericht
news:46228c3b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> You did a very good job then, because I was instantly reminded of that
> scene when i saw the picture. I think the one complaint I have is that
> it doesn't feel very wet somehow -- sort of like a drainage pipe somewhere
> where it hasn't rained for a month. I can't put my finger on what it is
> that makes me think this. I still like the image though and you capture a
> mood well with it.
Thank you indeed Kevin! Glad you recognized the scene, although this image
is not intended of course as a Tarkovski reminder. I just borrowed the key
element for my own purposes. There are still some other locations in Stalker
which I would like to "borrow".
Yes, the wet feel is difficult. I tried to get that by making part of the
wall and objects texture reflective in Rune's Patina macro, but it is rather
difficult to control correctly. Water should be running also down the walls,
dropping from the cable or the ceiling (only from the stalactites now). So
this particular scene here is from a fairly dry season, which explains why
Cathy is able to explore :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Too dark.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:18:20 +0200, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>After a cumulative render of about 49 hours, here is finally 'Age of
>Curiosity', the second part of my series Cathy's World.
Too light, until I adjusted the gamma.
Evocative as usual.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Too dark (Warp)
Too light (Stephen)
Now, isn't that interesting?
The scene uses the default gamma procedure for v.3.7. The only thing I did
was resave the png image before exporting to jpg.
The scene anyhow is rather dark because it is intended to be that. However,
I can see the details well enough on my screen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> schreef in bericht
news:46235b01$1@news.povray.org...
> Too dark (Warp)
> Too light (Stephen)
>
> Now, isn't that interesting?
> The scene uses the default gamma procedure for v.3.7. The only thing I did
> was resave the png image before exporting to jpg.
> The scene anyhow is rather dark because it is intended to be that.
> However, I can see the details well enough on my screen.
< I pressed send before I was finished...>
We have had this discussion before concerning the gamma in 3.7 I believe. As
far as I can tell, if I do nothing to my scene, it renders exactly identical
on 3.6 or 3.7, with the exception that WinIE shows the image far too light,
which is solved by just saving the image in PaintShopPro, without doing
anything. But otherwise, I see no difference.
Just the same, thanks Warp and Stephen to mention this :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> schreef in bericht
news:s9c62351dm0fm556e4fkd7l8tgfns5skms@4ax.com...
> Evocative as usual.
>
Thank you indeed Stephen! I do my best :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great seeing Poser figures in Povray! Keep em coming.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
She's too curious. :) I see what you mean by "in the shadows" now. I like
the way the lights are streaming in. I am glad too, whenever I see people
using Poser and POV-Ray together. Poser is not as easy as it looks (I
find), to create an image that looks good from an artistic standpoint. So,
great job Thomas!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Janet" <par### [at] attnet> schreef in bericht
news:web.4624432e1a29668e136e395e0@news.povray.org...
> She's too curious. :) I see what you mean by "in the shadows" now. I like
> the way the lights are streaming in. I am glad too, whenever I see people
> using Poser and POV-Ray together. Poser is not as easy as it looks (I
> find), to create an image that looks good from an artistic standpoint. So,
> great job Thomas!
>
Thank you indeed, Janet!
My question in povray.tools.poser concerned another image in fact where
radiosity should play an important role. Here, I didn't use radiosity at
all, as the render was already so terribly slow, so that I preferred using
v.3.7 on my dual core machine (and still 49 hours!).
Poser is very complex and I found (for now) that the best way to tackle
facial expressions and body language is to start from very simple basics as
found in the provided poses, and change those gradually until a harmonious
balance is found. It is very easy to overdue the effect, so one has to be
very careful. Especially the facial expressions need changes sometimes that
are hardly visible, but which convey a huge impact. And looking often into
the mirror helps a lot! :-) I think one has to be a bit of a (mental)
performer...
I like Poser very much and my "before and after" entry will show several
Poser figures. But I feel also that one has to restrain oneselves from using
Poser everywhere. It has to add a significant value to the scene, otherwise
it may look artificial. Oh well...
One of my next projects will involve tayloring clothes...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
