Hi all, thought I'd better post something because I haven't for a while 
now...

  I've come to the conclusion that PoV-Ray *is* a part of RL. (For me at 
least).

  Anyway, here's a Tiffany lamp that I've been working on recently. This is 
the colourful version with area_light turned off so don't worry, the final 
won't be like this. I tried a render last night with area_light turned on 
and this morning it was at 63% and had been running for 7 hours, so I 
stopped it. It was a closer shot as well.  :)

  I've frosted the red glass but I'm not sure if it will actually do 
anything in the final image yet (or I'm not sure what I'm trying to achieve, 
I guess some kind of diffusion I suppose), so I might take that out.

   Light is a single light_source, and all PoV 'bog' standard textures.  ;)

   Anyway, C&C always welcome.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tifflamp_snapshot.jpg' (138 KB)

Preview of image 'tifflamp_snapshot.jpg'

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:49844099@news.povray.org...
> Hi all, thought I'd better post something because I haven't for a while 
> now...
>
>  I've come to the conclusion that PoV-Ray *is* a part of RL. (For me at 
> least).
>
>  Anyway, here's a Tiffany lamp that I've been working on recently. This is 
> the colourful version with area_light turned off so don't worry, the final 
> won't be like this. I tried a render last night with area_light turned on 
> and this morning it was at 63% and had been running for 7 hours, so I 
> stopped it. It was a closer shot as well.  :)
>
>  I've frosted the red glass but I'm not sure if it will actually do 
> anything in the final image yet (or I'm not sure what I'm trying to 
> achieve, I guess some kind of diffusion I suppose), so I might take that 
> out.
>
>   Light is a single light_source, and all PoV 'bog' standard textures.  ;)
>
>   Anyway, C&C always welcome.
>

Well, some 'bog' standard comments then:

I like it, Steve. I do like it indeed. There is an interesting artistic 
world to explore in those decades of the 19th and 20th centuries. I just 
wonder a bit about the colors of the glass which look a bit pale to me, in 
contrast to the background (what is that anyway? I am not entirely sure 
about the geometry on which the lamplight seems to be projected) where the 
colors are much fuller/richer, which remind me more of the lamp shades of 
Tiffany and others; however, I am not an expert, and so might be totally 
wrong about this. So, is this difference an effect of the light?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> I just
> wonder a bit about the colors of the glass which look a bit pale to me, in
> contrast to the background (what is that anyway? I am not entirely sure
> about the geometry on which the lamplight seems to be projected) where the
> colors are much fuller/richer, which remind me more of the lamp shades of
> Tiffany and others; however, I am not an expert, and so might be totally
> wrong about this. So, is this difference an effect of the light?

Maybe a kind of an "overexposure" effect (one color component clipped at >100%).

Or maybe gamma issues?

Post a reply to this message

Will look real nice with the area light enabled. The glass seems almost like 
it is glowing. If you are using ambient for that part, I would try turning 
that off and trying double_illuminate instead. Might give it a little more 
depth.


"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:49844099@news.povray.org...
> Hi all, thought I'd better post something because I haven't for a while 
> now...
>
>  I've come to the conclusion that PoV-Ray *is* a part of RL. (For me at 
> least).
>
>  Anyway, here's a Tiffany lamp that I've been working on recently. This is 
> the colourful version with area_light turned off so don't worry, the final 
> won't be like this. I tried a render last night with area_light turned on 
> and this morning it was at 63% and had been running for 7 hours, so I 
> stopped it. It was a closer shot as well.  :)
>
>  I've frosted the red glass but I'm not sure if it will actually do 
> anything in the final image yet (or I'm not sure what I'm trying to 
> achieve, I guess some kind of diffusion I suppose), so I might take that 
> out.
>
>   Light is a single light_source, and all PoV 'bog' standard textures.  ;)
>
>   Anyway, C&C always welcome.
>
>     ~Steve~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:49844099@news.povray.org...
>   Anyway, C&C always welcome.

Very nice. I've tried lamps before (1 I liked 2 I didn't) so they are a 
difficult subject.

I like the shape and geometry in the shade .... don't mess with that. I 
would however do something diff for the base material. Think duller bronze. 
The tiffany lamps we've had in the shop have had bronze bases.

Cheers

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:498475fc@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:49844099@news.povray.org...
>
> Well, some 'bog' standard comments then:

     Heh... :)

>
> I like it, Steve. I do like it indeed.

   Thank you Thomas. :)


There is an interesting artistic
> world to explore in those decades of the 19th and 20th centuries. I just
> wonder a bit about the colors of the glass which look a bit pale to me, in
> contrast to the background

 I totally agree. I'll have a play with the colours.


> (what is that anyway?

Would you believe I c*cked up with this image? I forgot to scale the lamp, 
whereas I'd scaled the dressing table up for some weird reason. It makes it 
look like the lamp is small, (which it is, lol). Oh well...

Here's the proper image attached with AA still off and area_light off too. 
I'm doing another image later which I'll post tomorrow sometime.


I am not entirely sure
> about the geometry on which the lamplight seems to be projected) where the
> colors are much fuller/richer, which remind me more of the lamp shades of
> Tiffany and others;

Well, thanks for your 'bog' standard answers Thomas, because really, I 
should have called the subject "Tiffany 'Style' lamp" as well. ;)


however, I am not an expert, and so might be totally
> wrong about this.

 I'm not an expert either, but I'd like to think that Tiffany probably 
wouldn't have put this version into production.

> So, is this difference an effect of the light?

   Yes, I think so. With area_light turned on it looks much different.

     ~Steve~




>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'TiffStyleLamp.jpg' (119 KB)

Preview of image 'TiffStyleLamp.jpg'

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.49848dc3fd113391f95ab580@news.povray.org...

> Or maybe gamma issues?

   Hmm, could be, I think I've always had problems with choosing the right 
gamma numbers. At the moment assumed_gamma is set to .75, which looks ok to 
me.

  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:49848f0f$1@news.povray.org...

> Will look real nice with the area light enabled.

 Doing it hopefully later. It does look nice with area_light enabled. I 
think you've done this before. :)


The glass seems almost like
> it is glowing. If you are using ambient for that part, I would try turning 
> that off and trying double_illuminate instead. Might give it a little more 
> depth.

   Bingo. Yes, that's what I did - ambient of 1 on the glass. My original 
experiments were with ambient at 0, but I admit that I didn't like it too 
much or play too much with it, I just settled on what I thought looked good. 
Will experiment with double_illuminate, (never used it). Thanks for the tip.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4984b96a$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:49844099@news.povray.org...
>>   Anyway, C&C always welcome.
>
> Very nice. I've tried lamps before (1 I liked 2 I didn't) so they are a 
> difficult subject.

    Thank you. Yes, I do know what you mean, it 'is' a difficult subject. 
However, this is just a small section of the final image so the lamp works 
fine 'as is' in the position that it's supposed to be in. (That was the long 
way of saying that the lamp is supposed to be over in the corner of the room 
in the mirror reflection, heh.)  :)


>
> I like the shape and geometry in the shade .... don't mess with that. I 
> would however do something diff for the base material. Think duller 
> bronze. The tiffany lamps we've had in the shop have had bronze bases.

   Thanks for that tip. Will try for bronze. Yikes! o.o

    ~Steve~


>
> Cheers
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Here's the proper image attached with AA still off and area_light off too.
> I'm doing another image later which I'll post tomorrow sometime.

How come we can see the projected light on the mirror surface? Must be *really*
dusty... :P

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>    Hmm, could be, I think I've always had problems with choosing the right
> gamma numbers. At the moment assumed_gamma is set to .75, which looks ok to
> me.

Uh!

I keep having no idea (and can't seem to learn) which of all those gamma
settings to set to 1.0 and which to set to 2.2 - but I know for sure that there
should *not* be a .75 *anywhere*...

Post a reply to this message

St. nous illumina en ce 2009-01-31 07:13 -->
> Hi all, thought I'd better post something because I haven't for a while 
> now...
> 
>   I've come to the conclusion that PoV-Ray *is* a part of RL. (For me at 
> least).
> 
>   Anyway, here's a Tiffany lamp that I've been working on recently. This is 
> the colourful version with area_light turned off so don't worry, the final 
> won't be like this. I tried a render last night with area_light turned on 
> and this morning it was at 63% and had been running for 7 hours, so I 
> stopped it. It was a closer shot as well.  :)
> 
>   I've frosted the red glass but I'm not sure if it will actually do 
> anything in the final image yet (or I'm not sure what I'm trying to achieve, 
> I guess some kind of diffusion I suppose), so I might take that out.
> 
>    Light is a single light_source, and all PoV 'bog' standard textures.  ;)
> 
>    Anyway, C&C always welcome.
> 
>      ~Steve~
> 
> 
Have you tryed using photons and some micro normals for the shade? Or some 
averaged normals? If you use averaged normals, don't use to many, try with 5 and 
don't go over 10 to 12.
That way, a point light shadow will receive light from the glass parts. There 
will also be some colour bleeding from area to area.
Tifany lamps, if I remembre correctly, only rarely use realy transparent glass, 
but more cloudy and translucent ones. And, often, the transparent glass was far 
from flat and uniform.

When averaging normals with reflections, 10 averaged normals give 10 samples.
When averaging normals with transparency, the first surface generate 10 samples, 
and each one of those, when encoutering the second surface, generate 10 more. 
This result in 100 total samples per pixel.


Do you know that Mr. Tyfany was a precurson in recycling? He started making his 
lamps to recuperate the breaked glass he all to often got in his glass 
deliveries. He also reused the bits left over after making stained glass for 
churches.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't waste your time on a man/woman, who isn't willing to waste their time on you.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4984fd3afd113391a50ebcaf0@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>    Hmm, could be, I think I've always had problems with choosing the 
>> right
>> gamma numbers. At the moment assumed_gamma is set to .75, which looks ok 
>> to
>> me.
>
> Uh!
>
> I keep having no idea (and can't seem to learn) which of all those gamma
> settings to set to 1.0 and which to set to 2.2 - but I know for sure that 
> there
> should *not* be a .75 *anywhere*...

 :) Why not? If I increase it, it gets darker.

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4984fbea3364c832a50ebcaf0@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Here's the proper image attached with AA still off and area_light off 
>> too.
>> I'm doing another image later which I'll post tomorrow sometime.
>
> How come we can see the projected light on the mirror surface? Must be 
> *really*
> dusty... :P

   No, clean as a whistle! ;) Actually, it's not a mirror, it's just a box 
with a polished chrome finish. Now, it is planned to have some actual glass 
there because there really should be a double reflection of the lamp - one 
reflection from the mirror foil and one from the glass itself.  But I think 
the render time will suffer.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Ok, I didn't render this last night because in the end, I realised that 
there was too much to play with so did the playing this morning instead. :)

  I've just rendered this image now, it took 1 hour 22 minutes with 
area_light turned on and normal AA. I changed the colours of the glass to be 
less pale as per Thomas' suggestion, but are these colours too vivid now? I 
also made the glass more opaque which kind of looks good to me, but what do 
you think?

   Lastly, I changed (for now) the lamp stand from Gold_Metal to T_Gold_2A 
which looks better imo. I haven't tried to make it look bronze yet, and I 
might need some help with that, but anyway, that's the next thing to try. 
Oh, and a power cable with possibly one of those switches that hangs down... 
oh, you know what I mean. :)

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'snapshot2.jpg' (229 KB)

Preview of image 'snapshot2.jpg'

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message 
news:4984fe9d@news.povray.org...
> St. nous illumina en ce 2009-01-31 07:13 -->

> Have you tryed using photons and some micro normals for the shade?

  Photons is there in my code Alain, but it's commented out. ;) I did try it 
but the first couple of lines took a while iirc.

   As for the normals, I've got this:

   normal{ bumps .5 scale .0001}

  enabled on the glass, but it's not actually showing now when it should be 
like in that other image. Hmm, I wonder why that is?


Or some
> averaged normals? If you use averaged normals, don't use to many, try with 
> 5 and don't go over 10 to 12. That way, a point light shadow will receive 
> light from the glass parts. There will also be some colour bleeding from 
> area to area.


Ok, this sounds good, but I've never used average normals, so how would I do 
that?


> Tifany lamps, if I remembre correctly, only rarely use realy transparent 
> glass, but more cloudy and translucent ones. And, often, the transparent 
> glass was far from flat and uniform.

     Yes, I know what you mean, I think I've got the translucency ok now, so 
I'll try to warp the glass panels a little. Should look good I think.


>
> When averaging normals with reflections, 10 averaged normals give 10 
> samples.
> When averaging normals with transparency, the first surface generate 10 
> samples, and each one of those, when encoutering the second surface, 
> generate 10 more. This result in 100 total samples per pixel.

    Is this a slow process? It does sound good.


>
>
> Do you know that Mr. Tyfany was a precurson in recycling? He started 
> making his lamps to recuperate the breaked glass he all to often got in 
> his glass deliveries. He also reused the bits left over after making 
> stained glass for churches.

    Do you know what? It all makes sense now. I never got the link to the 
recycling part. <Ding!/lightbulb> Heh...

      ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Alain
> -------------------------------------------------
> Don't waste your time on a man/woman, who isn't willing to waste their 
> time on you.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> 
>  :) Why not? If I increase it, it gets darker.

Then you'll add more light and/or fix your display gamma in povray.ini
(so POV's preview looks correct):
Display_Gamma           = 1.6 (that my laptop's setting, check your own
monitor)

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart

>     ~Steve~

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schreef in bericht 
news:49848f0f$1@news.povray.org...
> Will look real nice with the area light enabled. The glass seems almost 
> like it is glowing. If you are using ambient for that part, I would try 
> turning that off and trying double_illuminate instead. Might give it a 
> little more depth.
>

Aah! High ambient! that explains a lot! I would settle for some intermediary 
value in this case.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message 
news:4985654d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>
>>  :) Why not? If I increase it, it gets darker.
>
> Then you'll add more light and/or fix your display gamma in povray.ini
> (so POV's preview looks correct):
> Display_Gamma           = 1.6 (that my laptop's setting, check your own
> monitor)
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart

    Cool. Thanks, it says 2.2 or 1.8. I tried both of these in the 
povray.ini file and it's still too dark.

       ~Steve~


>
>>     ~Steve~
>
> -Aero

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:49856234@news.povray.org...
> Ok, I didn't render this last night because in the end, I realised that 
> there was too much to play with so did the playing this morning instead. 
> :)
>
>  I've just rendered this image now, it took 1 hour 22 minutes with 
> area_light turned on and normal AA. I changed the colours of the glass to 
> be less pale as per Thomas' suggestion, but are these colours too vivid 
> now? I also made the glass more opaque which kind of looks good to me, but 
> what do you think?
>
>   Lastly, I changed (for now) the lamp stand from Gold_Metal to T_Gold_2A 
> which looks better imo. I haven't tried to make it look bronze yet, and I 
> might need some help with that, but anyway, that's the next thing to try. 
> Oh, and a power cable with possibly one of those switches that hangs 
> down... oh, you know what I mean. :)
>

Ah yes, this begins to look good. The colors are a bit too *primary* to my 
taste. You could try to use somewhat *off* reds, yellows, and blues; maybe 
even a very tiny bit different for each piece of glass. A bit darker too. 
Scale down the ambient too. Maybe a value around 0.5 will look nice. The 
opacity is allright I think.

A bronze I use, but which might not be correct for your base, is the 
following, originally from Texture Magic:

  texture {
   pigment {
    colour rgb<0.549,0.467,0.137>
   }
   normal { granite 0.1  scale 0.01 }
   finish {
    ambient 0
    diffuse 0.7
    brilliance 2.0
    specular 0.3
    roughness 0.005
    metallic
   }
  }

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
> 
>     Cool. Thanks, it says 2.2 or 1.8. I tried both of these in the 
> povray.ini file and it's still too dark.

Use the test patterns provided on that page. Neither my laptop nor my
desktop's CRT have 1.8 or 2.2.

>        ~Steve~

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:49856b61$1@news.povray.org...

> Ah yes, this begins to look good. The colors are a bit too *primary* to my
> taste. You could try to use somewhat *off* reds, yellows, and blues; maybe
> even a very tiny bit different for each piece of glass. A bit darker too.
> Scale down the ambient too. Maybe a value around 0.5 will look nice. The
> opacity is allright I think.

    Here's the next one with AA and area_light on. Amazingly, this rendered 
in only 58 minutes. I've used 0.5 on the coloured glass for the ambient in 
this one, and diffused the glass colours by 25%. I'm not sure about it, so I 
think I'll try 0.75 to see what that looks like, but what do you think? Ok 
at 0.5?


>
> A bronze I use, but which might not be correct for your base, is the
> following, originally from Texture Magic:
>
>  texture {
>   pigment {
>    colour rgb<0.549,0.467,0.137>
>   }
>   normal { granite 0.1  scale 0.01 }
>   finish {
>    ambient 0
>    diffuse 0.7
>    brilliance 2.0
>    specular 0.3
>    roughness 0.005
>    metallic
>   }
>  }

 Thanks Thomas! That's actually quite nice as it is, but it came out kind of 
matt in appearance so I put the metallic in a reflection block and added 
conserve_energy to give it some shine. I think it might have too much 
reflection now though. The normals show a little too much but they should 
look better when using better AA.

 Oh, and added a switch. :)

  ~Steve~




> Thomas
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'snapshot3.jpg' (230 KB)

Preview of image 'snapshot3.jpg'

"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message 
news:4985880d@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
>>
>>     Cool. Thanks, it says 2.2 or 1.8. I tried both of these in the
>> povray.ini file and it's still too dark.
>
> Use the test patterns provided on that page.

      I downloaded QuickGamma but it doesn't seem to do anything if I change 
the numbers. I'm obviously doing something wrong. :/


Neither my laptop nor my
> desktop's CRT have 1.8 or 2.2.

    Hmm, ok, so what are your settings then? Higher?

       ~Steve~


>
> -Aero

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>> Neither my laptop nor my
>> desktop's CRT have 1.8 or 2.2.
> 
>     Hmm, ok, so what are your settings then? Higher?

My laptop's is 1.6 and IIRC desktop CRT's even lower, but since my
workstation broke over a year ago, I can't remember for sure :P.

>        ~Steve~

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schreef in bericht news:49859f64@news.povray.org...
>    Here's the next one with AA and area_light on. Amazingly, this rendered 
> in only 58 minutes. I've used 0.5 on the coloured glass for the ambient in 
> this one, and diffused the glass colours by 25%. I'm not sure about it, so 
> I think I'll try 0.75 to see what that looks like, but what do you think? 
> Ok at 0.5?

Yes, this looks much better. Just to be sure, try also 0.75 indeed, and make 
your choice :-)
With this kind of testing, I am always reminded of woodworkers or 
stomemasons (and jewellers too, of course): scratching here, taking off 
there, polishing, chipping again, polishing again. It's a real artisanal 
work. Like you said earlier: RL.

> Thanks Thomas! That's actually quite nice as it is, but it came out kind 
> of matt in appearance so I put the metallic in a reflection block and 
> added conserve_energy to give it some shine. I think it might have too 
> much reflection now though. The normals show a little too much but they 
> should look better when using better AA.

You are right! The reflection block works better here, but you can scale 
that a bit down too. The same thing for the micro normals which can be 
dimmed somewhat, but this depends on the aa. I took the example from a scene 
I am working on, where the reflections should be virtually absent.

>
> Oh, and added a switch. :)

Nice one!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > I keep having no idea (and can't seem to learn) which of all those gamma
> > settings to set to 1.0 and which to set to 2.2 - but I know for sure that
> > there
> > should *not* be a .75 *anywhere*...
>
>  :) Why not? If I increase it, it gets darker.

If your scene is too dark, that's not necessarily the gamma's fault. Maybe it's
time to replace that 25W light bulb with a 60W one.

The gamma settings are *not* suitable for adjusting overall scene brightness,
because they do so nonlinearly, thereby messing up the saturation in a highly
brightness-dependent fashion. Exactly the type of "selective washing-out" of
colors seen in your shot.

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message
> > Ah yes, this begins to look good. The colors are a bit too *primary* to my
> > taste. You could try to use somewhat *off* reds, yellows, and blues; maybe
> > even a very tiny bit different for each piece of glass. A bit darker too.
> > Scale down the ambient too. Maybe a value around 0.5 will look nice. The
> > opacity is allright I think.
>
>     Here's the next one with AA and area_light on. Amazingly, this rendered
> in only 58 minutes. I've used 0.5 on the coloured glass for the ambient in
> this one, and diffused the glass colours by 25%. I'm not sure about it, so I
> think I'll try 0.75 to see what that looks like, but what do you think? Ok
> at 0.5?

Nice work.  Seems like the glass could use a bit more texture though.  I'd
expect the overall tone of the image to be softer and warmer for a lamp like
this.  Here's an example for reference:

http://styleglass.com/tiffanylamp.jpg

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>   I've just rendered this image now, it took 1 hour 22 minutes with
> area_light turned on and normal AA. I changed the colours of the glass to be
> less pale as per Thomas' suggestion, but are these colours too vivid now?

It *is* too vivid now. The problem wasn't the saturation per se, but the
difference in saturation between the lampshade and the shadows cast. Which most
likely is a gamma problem.

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>       I downloaded QuickGamma but it doesn't seem to do anything if I change
> the numbers. I'm obviously doing something wrong. :/

Why the * use QuickGamma, when all you need to do is check what your *current*
gamma is, set your POV "Display_Gamma" .ini setting to that value, insert
"assumed_gamma 1.0" in your scene, and then go ahead to fix your scene's
lighting conditions...

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4985c3c8$1@news.povray.org...


> Yes, this looks much better. Just to be sure, try also 0.75 indeed, and 
> make
> your choice :-)

    Ah, well, in this next image I used .7, and I think it looks ok. This 
shot is with photons enabled and I stopped it at line 444 with 2pps showing. 
(10PP's for someone who gets close to the render time of this image). :)

   I can't see that it did much in the image so I don't think I'll use 
photonsthankyouverymuch. :)

  However, I think the glass is better now but still too vivid.


> With this kind of testing, I am always reminded of woodworkers or
> stomemasons (and jewellers too, of course): scratching here, taking off
> there, polishing, chipping again, polishing again. It's a real artisanal
> work. Like you said earlier: RL.

     My Grandad was a good woodworker, making all kinds of weird and 
wonderful things like turned bowls to 'what-nots' to corner cabinets and 
coffee tables, usually in solid oak or mahogany.


> You are right! The reflection block works better here, but you can scale
> that a bit down too. The same thing for the micro normals which can be
> dimmed somewhat, but this depends on the aa. I took the example from a 
> scene
> I am working on, where the reflections should be virtually absent.

    Yes, the image attached was being rendered before I read this so they're 
not applied as yet, but the funny thing is, with the lamp in its proper 
place at the back of the room, the bronze looks so much better. So I think 
I'll leave it as it is now.


>
>>
>> Oh, and added a switch. :)
>
> Nice one!



    Hehe, there are more things now! :)

      ~Steve~



>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'snapshot4_phot_test.jpg' (307 KB)

Preview of image 'snapshot4_phot_test.jpg'

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4985fa6fe879b872ef2b9ba40@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:

> Nice work.  Seems like the glass could use a bit more texture though.  I'd
> expect the overall tone of the image to be softer and warmer for a lamp 
> like
> this.  Here's an example for reference:
>
> http://styleglass.com/tiffanylamp.jpg

 Thank you! I did a lot of searching but didn't spot that one - it's 
perfect.

  Yes, I definately need to add some varying opaque in there somehow.

    ~Steve~



>
> - Ricky
>

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4986067dfd113391f8450bd80@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>       I downloaded QuickGamma but it doesn't seem to do anything if I 
>> change
>> the numbers. I'm obviously doing something wrong. :/
>
> Why the * use QuickGamma, when all you need to do is check what your 
> *current*
> gamma is, set your POV "Display_Gamma" .ini setting to that value, insert
> "assumed_gamma 1.0" in your scene, and then go ahead to fix your scene's
> lighting conditions...

     But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

But the rest of the internet is not. Think about them also :D


Really. Gammas should be checked and calibrated (even visually). You'll
benefit and the others will too.

Post a reply to this message

And just a bit of media to show the light cone.....

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:49886d02$1@news.povray.org...
> And just a bit of media to show the light cone.....

    Of course. That's one thing that I've done before, and it looks quite 
good, so I'll try it again. But not now as I have to crack on with my TC-RTC 
image.  :)

     ~Steve~



>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Severi Salminen" <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote in 
message news:498849bb@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)
>
> But the rest of the internet is not. Think about them also :D

     LOL! You're correct of course... ;)


>
>
> Really. Gammas should be checked and calibrated (even visually). You'll
> benefit and the others will too.

    So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add it 
to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene and then adjust my scene using correct 
ambients until it looks right. But I kind of do that anyway, apart from my 
assumed_gamma is .75. I thought the idea was to play around in SDL to get 
something good out of it? ;)

    It's confusing, that's for sure. I mean, you must be seeing the same as 
me, right? I'm sure I would have had more comments about 'washed out', or 
'too dark' by now if you weren't.  :)

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > Why the * use QuickGamma, when all you need to do is check what your
> > *current*
> > gamma is, set your POV "Display_Gamma" .ini setting to that value, insert
> > "assumed_gamma 1.0" in your scene, and then go ahead to fix your scene's
> > lighting conditions...
>
>      But I'm happy with the way I'm doing it. ;)

Darn - I was hoping I could convince you ;)

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>     So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add it
> to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene

Noooooo! Stooooooop! (*grabs & pulls away keyboard*)

Phew, that was close...

No, *please* don't set "assumed_gamma" to 2.2... I have the theory that it
should be set to 1.0 actually; Set "Display_Gamma" to 2.2 instead, and see what
it does. Check with that "Gamma Test Scene" I posted.

And I wish people would leave that freakin' ambient alone, and use *proper*
lighting, like radiosity and HDR light maps and stuff like that... no surprise
people keep fighting with material settings...


You remember that "Immortal Game" scene? Well, bet you do ;) In case you forgot
where to find it:

http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index185.html

(Okay, that's actually for people reading this thread and wondering, "what the
heck is he talking about" ;))

Look at the white knight's mane (upper part, that's a raytraced square).

Guess how long I've been struggling to make good gold or brass textures?

I tell you - for hours on end. And I bet I'm not the only one.

Now guess how long it took me to get the gold material in this shot right (not
talking about the bump mapping here, just color and reflection and all)?

Just a freakin' five minutes; once I had gone for the HDR image for background,
it all came just naturally.

How long do you think I did tinker with the materials for the marble pieces?

Not much work there either.

I think there's a secret here: You can toy around with reflective materials for
ages and ages - if they don't have anything good to reflect, they'll always
look like something else than you intend them to. But if they do have proper
surroundings, it's all a piece of cake.

The same goes for dull materials and a proper lighting model. Radiosity makes
*so* much of a difference. Image-based lighting works good, too (except that
POV doesn't have it). Even if you don't really *see* it in a shot: You *feel*
it, somehow.

(And likewise, to get proper results, the gamma settings need to be right... ;))

Having spent a bit of time trying to sort out the whole gamma smash, I guess
your setting of "assumed_gamma 0.75" isn't so bad after all - in combination
with a "Display_Gamma" of 1.0 it should have roughly the same effect as the
combo "assumed_gamma 1.0" and "Display_Gamma=2.2". However, the drawback is
that you can't properly render other people's scenes that have an "assumed
gamma 1.0" statement, and others can't properly render your scenes either.

And defining translucent materials with an "ambient" term... yuck! I bet you do
that for a purpose, but... well, I guess it's time POV learns how to do fast
subsurface scattering instead, 'cause I bet that's what you try to emulate...
(did I mention that I don't think too much of that "ambient" thing? :P)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4988eb2dfd1133915c2186730@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>>     So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add 
>> it
>> to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene
>
> Noooooo! Stooooooop! (*grabs & pulls away keyboard*)
>
> Phew, that was close...

It was indeed  :-)


> No, *please* don't set "assumed_gamma" to 2.2... I have the theory that it
> should be set to 1.0 actually; Set "Display_Gamma" to 2.2 instead, and see 
> what
> it does. Check with that "Gamma Test Scene" I posted.

Exactly! assumed_gamma 1.0; display_gamma to whatever value is correct for 
your machine.


> And I wish people would leave that freakin' ambient alone, and use 
> *proper*
> lighting, like radiosity and HDR light maps and stuff like that... no 
> surprise
> people keep fighting with material settings...

My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit 
of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases 
ambient should be 0.

I know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is not 
orthodox usage  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:58:54 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit 
>of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases 
>ambient should be 0.

I can't say that I agree with you about using an ambient of zero unless you are
talking about radiosity scenes. And I will stay away from them until Christoph
fixes the code for that. I typically use an ambient between 0.1 and 0.3 for
everyday scenes.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:58:54 +0100, "Thomas de Groot"
> <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit
> >of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases
> >ambient should be 0.
>
> I can't say that I agree with you about using an ambient of zero unless you are
> talking about radiosity scenes. And I will stay away from them until Christoph
> fixes the code for that. I typically use an ambient between 0.1 and 0.3 for
> everyday scenes.

Interesting. I never use ambient > 0, except values of 1.0 for
radiosity/environment lighting, and special effects like those that Thomas was
referring to. I find ambient > 0 makes images look washed out and flat.

Mind you, > 90% of my test renders use radiosity...!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed,  4 Feb 2009 09:07:57 EST, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Interesting. I never use ambient > 0, except values of 1.0 for
>radiosity/environment lighting, and special effects like those that Thomas was
>referring to. I find ambient > 0 makes images look washed out and flat.
>
>Mind you, > 90% of my test renders use radiosity...!
>

I find that low levels of ambient save me messing about with fill in lights and
light groups.
Mind you I don't go in for photo realism much :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> My experience is that, with translucent surfaces used as lamp shades, a bit
> of ambient on the texture finish is working just fine. In all other cases
> ambient should be 0.
>
> I know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is not
> orthodox usage  :-)

As I said: I guess we need a fast way to do subsurface scattering in POV, so
nobody needs to misuse ambient for that...

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4989ade2fd113391768855fc0@news.povray.org...
>> I know you disagree on the translucency bit, but it works, even if it is 
>> not
>> orthodox usage  :-)
>
> As I said: I guess we need a fast way to do subsurface scattering in POV, 
> so
> nobody needs to misuse ambient for that...

Agreed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>     So what you're really saying is adjust my monitor to 2.2 and then add it 
> to assumed_gamma 2.2 in my scene and then adjust my scene using correct 
> ambients until it looks right. But I kind of do that anyway, apart from my 
> assumed_gamma is .75. I thought the idea was to play around in SDL to get 
> something good out of it? ;)

No! (Read below :)

>     It's confusing, that's for sure. I mean, you must be seeing the same as 
> me, right? I'm sure I would have had more comments about 'washed out', or 
> 'too dark' by now if you weren't.  :)

Do this (you seem to use Windows):

1. Open your Display settings and set monitor gamma to default value
(usually 1.0 means no correction. Choose that.). Ask me if you can't
find the settings.

2. Open this:

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart

Look at the chart on the right side. Take a few steps away from your
monitor and look it again. You should try to figure out the point where
the smooth gradient looks as dark as the striped pattern. You can read
your current actual display gamma. (Look at the example on the left side
for what to look for.)

3. If the actual display gamma is not 2.2 or close to it you have to
adjust the setting you found on step 1. Move it to one way or another
and you'll see that the actual gamma of your display changes. Find the
setting where the resulting gamma is 2.2.

4. Congratulate yourself! Now you just calibrated your monitor to show
decent values. Remember that this is not as precise as using calibrator
but gives you decent settings. Also, you have to set brightness and
contrast to proper values. Set contrast at maximum and use the "BLACK
LEVEL" chart on the rightmost side to set brightness.

5. Congratulate again!

6. Set the damn assumed gamma value to 1.0!!!

7. Adjust your scene to get good looks.

8. Yes, your image looks washed out on my screen. I think it would look
even more washed out if you had used assumed gamma 0.5 or 0.25.

Severi

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote:
> http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
>
> Look at the chart on the right side. Take a few steps away from your
> monitor and look it again.

Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
useless.

Looking at the display from just the same spot as you usually do and squinting
your eyes is usually the better approach.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
> useless.

Yeah, especially with TN panels. I use a MVA/PVA which is better. IPS
should be very good in this respect, too. I had a TN display for a few
days but I hated it because poor viewing angles. Not suitable for
anything where you'd like to have even slightly accurate colors. Don't
know if TNs are better now.

> Looking at the display from just the same spot as you usually do and squinting
> your eyes is usually the better approach.

Yeah, that might be the safest way to do it. Still, it is a shame
monitors are not factory calibrated - besides Eizos and some other Pro
displays.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
> useless.

This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
rage with laptops.  As if seeing the reflection of my ugly face is an
"improvement."  Between the extremely narrow viewing angle (I can sense a
mismatch between my eyes just by tilting my head) and the reflection, setting
the gamma is nearly impossible.

(I'm just as puzzled over the popularity of glossy magazines and of the glossy
varnishes used on paintings.  I just find myself frustrated with the reflection
of the room and room lighting interfering with the picture or magazine article.
Sure I like gloss--but on things that I don't have to examine, such as flower
vases and kitchen appliances.)

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-02-07 08:03 -->
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Not recommended with current LCD technology: It's still too
>> viewing-angle-dependent (typically in the up/down diretion), and taking a few
>> steps back may change the angle significantly enough to make your results quite
>> useless.
> 
> This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
> rage with laptops.  As if seeing the reflection of my ugly face is an
> "improvement."  Between the extremely narrow viewing angle (I can sense a
> mismatch between my eyes just by tilting my head) and the reflection, setting
> the gamma is nearly impossible.
> 
> (I'm just as puzzled over the popularity of glossy magazines and of the glossy
> varnishes used on paintings.  I just find myself frustrated with the reflection
> of the room and room lighting interfering with the picture or magazine article.
> Sure I like gloss--but on things that I don't have to examine, such as flower
> vases and kitchen appliances.)
> 
Yes, gloss on reading material is a PAIN! I prefer my photos printed in low 
gloss mate or satin finish.
On CRT monitors, they go to a great lenght to reduce or elliminate the gloss. 
You can buy anti-reflection screens that fit over the monitor.
Initialy, LCDs where mate. Now, they stupidly invest a lot of efforts into 
making them glossy, and thus, less useable.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A true friend is someone who reaches for your hand and touches your heart.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> This is especially true of these new-fangled glossy screens that are all the
> rage with laptops.

Uh - say no more! I think "yuck!" says it all.

It definitely does improve the image. In a pitch-black room. With your face
painted like a U.S. Marine on his way to a night raid.

Nuff said.

Post a reply to this message