 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I revisited an older scene from 2002-2003 and updated/changed/added to it,
then rendered in version 3.7 beta 31. The smaller image is the old original.
I clearly had a strange notion at that time, of how media should look like
:-)
Still, in the latest version, some improvements are yet possible in media
samples, radiosity count and smoother aa. However, I am already satisfied
with this.
Elephant from the Taschen Collection.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Elephant Dream_revisited_05.jpg' (130 KB)
Download 'Elephant dream_original.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'Elephant Dream_revisited_05.jpg'
Preview of image 'Elephant dream_original.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> I revisited an older scene from 2002-2003 and updated/changed/added to it,
> then rendered in version 3.7 beta 31. The smaller image is the old original.
> I clearly had a strange notion at that time, of how media should look like
> :-)
>
> Still, in the latest version, some improvements are yet possible in media
> samples, radiosity count and smoother aa. However, I am already satisfied
> with this.
Very strong motif!
I don't like the contrast of the revisited shot, though. A *bit* more light on
the dreaming elephant, please!
Also, the shot looks to me like there is a wall outside, which I reckon is *not*
intentional.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Makes much more sense than the Blender movie. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49cbbfa84439681293bfb07f0@news.povray.org...
>
> Very strong motif!
Thanks!
>
> I don't like the contrast of the revisited shot, though. A *bit* more
> light on
> the dreaming elephant, please!
Correct. Between the two images, a backwall (with window) and a roof have
been added, and a spotlight removed.
>
> Also, the shot looks to me like there is a wall outside, which I reckon is
> *not*
> intentional.
Oh, but there is a wall indeed! and intentional too! :-) Between the two
farthest elephants. The dream is layered, you see?
However, the intention is to make the wall more irregular.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> schreef in bericht
news:49cbe835$1@news.povray.org...
> Makes much more sense than the Blender movie. ;)
>
<grin>
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
>
> Correct. Between the two images, a backwall (with window) and a roof have
> been added, and a spotlight removed.
>
I kind of *like* the spotlight effect--looks more 'pictorial' (if less
realistic.) This is just my personal preference in images: more theatrical!
Almost to the point of non-realism. The way I 'see' my own images is with more
of a cinematographer's eye--heightened realism and lighting, as opposed to
plain old dull realism ;-)
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
news:web.49cc97ef44396812f50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> I kind of *like* the spotlight effect--looks more 'pictorial' (if less
> realistic.) This is just my personal preference in images: more
> theatrical!
> Almost to the point of non-realism. The way I 'see' my own images is with
> more
> of a cinematographer's eye--heightened realism and lighting, as opposed to
> plain old dull realism ;-)
>
I might indeed restore the spotlight (or spotlights even) but much dimmer
than in the original, and possibly more colorfull...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Oh, but there is a wall indeed! and intentional too! :-) Between the two
> farthest elephants. The dream is layered, you see?
Oh - okay... that indeed explains why it *looks* like that ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49ccff6a44396812208afb30@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh - okay... that indeed explains why it *looks* like that ;)
Yes, I know, the wall does not look too good here. It is a fast 'n dirty
difference of cylinders. My usual method of work: first a dirty job, then
cleaning the mess up :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I don't like the contrast of the revisited shot, though. A *bit* more light on
> the dreaming elephant, please!
I have viewed the new image on two different computers, and the contrast looks
completely different. On my Mac at home the contrast is looking pretty okay;
you can clearly make out the details of the little elephant. However, on my
Windows machine at work is pretty much solid black, hardly distinguishable from
the rest of its surroundings.
This is something I still struggle with with my own images as well. Depending on
the computer, the image format, or even the application I use to view it, the
image can look significantly different. This makes fine-tuning of the color and
light settings quite difficult of course.
Anyway, I like where this image is going.
Cheers,
Erwin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eriban" <pov### [at] spamgourmetcom> schreef in bericht > I have
viewed the new image on two different computers, and the contrast looks
> completely different. On my Mac at home the contrast is looking pretty
> okay;
> you can clearly make out the details of the little elephant. However, on
> my
> Windows machine at work is pretty much solid black, hardly distinguishable
> from
> the rest of its surroundings.
>
> This is something I still struggle with with my own images as well.
> Depending on
> the computer, the image format, or even the application I use to view it,
> the
> image can look significantly different. This makes fine-tuning of the
> color and
> light settings quite difficult of course.
Hm. I can view the image fine on my Windows PC. The scene was originally
written for POV 3.5 (Moray). In my initial rewrite I adapted everything to
the standard 3.6 version (assumed_gamma 1.0 etc), then rendered in 3.7
without further ado, except of course commenting out all commands that are
obsolete for that version. Between the two versions, I have no difference is
contrast. Also, the display gamma is correct too. This means that your
machine at work has a differing display gamma most probably.
> Anyway, I like where this image is going.
Thanks!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Latest version which answers most of the comments.
List of macros:
Ruined wall macro by Ian Shumsky (2000)
Grasstex macro by Rune Johansen (2002)
Meshrelief macro by Bill Pragnell (2008)
Maketree macro by Gilles Tran (1999)
Scene originally composed in Moray 3.5.
Render time: 3 hours 40 minutes on dual core machine.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Elephant Dream_revisited_06.jpg' (145 KB)
Preview of image 'Elephant Dream_revisited_06.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Latest version which answers most of the comments.
What's that white "crop mark" near the elephant's front leg?
Aside from that: Much better regarding the lighting! Although you seem to favor
dark regions with not much contrast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49ce46e94439681222390e420@news.povray.org...
> What's that white "crop mark" near the elephant's front leg?
I don't know. It is not present in the original png, so it probably is a
jpeg artifact.
>
> Aside from that: Much better regarding the lighting! Although you seem to
> favor
> dark regions with not much contrast.
Thanks! Concerning the dark regions, if no light is shining directly in the
corners, shadows are dark with low contrast, especially as the textures are
dark too, is that no so?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Thanks! Concerning the dark regions, if no light is shining directly in the
> corners, shadows are dark with low contrast, especially as the textures are
> dark too, is that no so?
Sure, if it was just for the corners I wouldn't mention it; but the little
elephant, although we can at least see him now, is still quite "borderline" for
my taste regarding the lighting, and I'm quite sure it's not just my display.
I'm not sure whether this is an intentional style of yours, so I mentioned it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49cf720244396812ea392f10@news.povray.org...
>
> Sure, if it was just for the corners I wouldn't mention it; but the little
> elephant, although we can at least see him now, is still quite
> "borderline" for
> my taste regarding the lighting, and I'm quite sure it's not just my
> display.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is an intentional style of yours, so I mentioned
> it.
>
>
Then there *must* be a difference in display because I can see every detail
of the elephant and of the walls, even in the corners...
I shall check my settings again.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
> news:web.49cf720244396812ea392f10@news.povray.org...
>> Sure, if it was just for the corners I wouldn't mention it; but the little
>> elephant, although we can at least see him now, is still quite
>> "borderline" for
>> my taste regarding the lighting, and I'm quite sure it's not just my
>> display.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether this is an intentional style of yours, so I mentioned
>> it.
>>
>
> Then there *must* be a difference in display because I can see every detail
> of the elephant and of the walls, even in the corners...
>
> I shall check my settings again.
>
Looks fine here (on a calibrated display).
Jerome
- --
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAknPhiEACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/8kACglYkWzWbMTQPEqpWr50yhMBRi
ZZkAnjQ1Lc3D963zBH0gakzlz7GZG/6c
=Gkal
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
""Jérôme M. Berger"" <jeb### [at] freefr> schreef in bericht
news:49cf8622@news.povray.org...
> Looks fine here (on a calibrated display).
Forgot to mention: LCD screen here.
Checked my settings: all ok here too.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Then there *must* be a difference in display because I can see every detail
> of the elephant and of the walls, even in the corners...
>
> I shall check my settings again.
Whoops - hold it.
Just had a closer look at the shot again, only to find that it is not so bad
really - but that my display is not so good regarding vertical viewing angle; I
did set it properly for viewing when I'm working on my own shots, but contrast
seems to suffer when I'm slumped back in my chair lazily, viewing others'
works...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.49cfac6244396812ea392f10@news.povray.org...
>
> Whoops - hold it.
>
> Just had a closer look at the shot again, only to find that it is not so
> bad
> really - but that my display is not so good regarding vertical viewing
> angle; I
> did set it properly for viewing when I'm working on my own shots, but
> contrast
> seems to suffer when I'm slumped back in my chair lazily, viewing others'
> works...
Shame on you! Slumping back indeed! :-)
I know that phenomenon too, and have to be careful especially with my own
work, because it is then that I slump back... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
