"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4d8e1ed1$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/26/2011 01:10 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
>> Likely more to do with real camera vs POV camera.  In real cameras lens
>> distortion effects like barrel distortion get introduced which POV 
>> doesn't.  Can
>> also be a simple perspective issue.  Bringin the camera in closer with a 
>> wider
>> veiwing angle will exagerate perspective more.
>>
> cool ... thanks for the "teaching" moment ;-)

That is indeed the explanation. There is an easy solution to that with 
FieldCam.inc by Doctor John, a nice macro which sets buildings straight. I 
have not used in the present image but I most probably will in the final 
one.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] povrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4d8e0a76$1@news.povray.org...
> On 03/26/2011 10:29 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> What is your impression?
>
> Wow ... the hard work you've put into it shows. You've captured the mood 
> of the original plus some ... excellent.

Thank you Jim :-)

>
> Curious (as I've had this problem too) ... why do the right side buildings 
> look straight up perfect, but the left side looks almost there as well 
> (except with the fence nearest the camera) ... I'm looking at where the 
> fence/building meet. I'm sure (well maybe not) this has to do camera 
> position and viewing angle. Not being critical of the work, but just 
> hoping to start a conversation about the best ways to solve this problem 
> ... what's your camera definition look like ... or is some kind of 
> transformation of the objects the best way to tackle this.

See later about this...

> Oh ... yeah I like the contrasting idea of almost all b/w objects then one 
> or two objects in color ... nice touch!

Yes indeed. It is not really original and has been done here before by 
better Povers than me ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4d8e1a1ed16f200eb568d5750@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> pretty damn good so far!

Thank you indeed :-)

>
> reconstructing scenes from photography is stimulating, isn't it?  And a 
> hell of
> a challenge for sure!  Still need some matching up with the right angle, 
> but
> after you complete this, seeing it from another angle is a must too. 
> After all,
> this is not merely a 2D register. :)

It is a real challenge because so much is unknown - like real dimensions for 
instance - and you have to infer a lot of things from 2D back to 3D. Getting 
the camera right was the most difficult and subtle part however.
Overall I am quite happy, and both images almost coincide (that is also one 
of the techniques I used with the help of Tim Nikias'glare macro). Things do 
not need to coincide perfectly however, and I have taken some liberties here 
and there.

> how did you do the fine details like the fences?  Is it a texture?

No, I modelled the fence elements in Silo (like all buildings in this scene) 
and then copied them.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4d8e3a38d16f200e94d713cc0@news.povray.org...
> Wow, I can really appreciate all the time you've put into the modelling, 
> and
> matching up all the details in the scene assembly. A couple of things that 
> I
> think would bring it closer to the original would include:

Thank you indeed Robert :-)

>
> Use an image_pattern or pigment_pattern as a specularity/reflection mask 
> for the
> pavement to break up the highlights more, to show variation of wetness 
> areas;
> maybe with the (I'm assuming) height_field just a bit more jagged or 
> exaggerated
> to show that the pavers are not all the same height.

The pavement is made of individual stones (some 20k+ of them) using my 
Cobblestone macro. They are aligned on an irregular surface (could be 
increased some more) and have some irregularities in their placement. Each 
stone has its own random texture variation of course. So, I am not sure how 
to implement your suggestion here, but I shall think about it.

>
> A similar image_pattern circular glow around the lights (or a spherical 
> density
> media) in addition to what you have already there would really tie the 
> lights
> into the "atmosphere" of the shot - there's quite a harsh line of 
> separation
> from the sky in the top light.

OK, this is the crux of my trials and errors. At the lamp locations are two 
spherical emission media with spherical densities. What I did however, and 
maybe I should attenuate that, I shifted the center of the density some way 
up. My intention was to deform the halo a bit like one seems to notice in 
the original: the halo is stronger below the lamp shade than above it. 
However this causes this sharp boundary you mention.
In addition, a scattering media scatters the light cone a bit further.

>
> Overall, very impressive; this is looking great!

Again, thank you Robert.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4d8e49f8d16f200e9e5cacc00@news.povray.org...
> It's most excellent, Thomas! Your attention to detail and proficiency at
> modeling really come through.

Thank you indeed Sam. Each modelling day comes with new tricks to learn...

>
> The atmosphere might need a little work. I'm not sure how to achieve 
> realistic
> scattering effects as I'm not too great at using media, but I wonder if 
> you
> could fake some of it with emitting media? MegaPOV's glows might also do 
> the
> trick, though it would require going back to 3.6.

I used emitting media here for the halos, but obviously they need more work. 
They were the primary reason why I reveled this image ;-)

>
> More pronounced reflections on the surfaces also wouldn't hurt. I'm 
> guessing
> they would have more to reflect if the air was receiving more light...

Yes, I agree. Most surfaces have some measure of reflection (mostly 
reflection {0, 0.1}) and I should perhaps increase the lower value.

>
> All-in-all it's a superb modeling job and faithful reproduction of the 
> original.
> Good job!

Thanks again Sam :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 26/03/2011 3:27 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Stephen"<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  schreef in bericht
> news:4d8dfb20@news.povray.org...
>> On 26/03/2011 1:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> What is your impression?
>>
>> 1950's Paris.
>
> Yes, that was what I was hoping.
>

Well it is certainly what you said ;-)




>>
>> Except, shouldn't Kathy be dressed more as a ragamuffin?
>
> Point is: I want to suggest a time mix. In b/w is the period Paris of 1951,
> while in color Cathy lives in a much later dimension, unaware of her
> surroundings. Not really convincing maybe, but that is the idea.
>

Great idea but I think it should be less subtle. Why not bring Cathy 
nearer the camera?

>>
>> I look forward to seeing the final render with atmosphere. It makes me
>> want to use/steal the print for my darkroom scene. ;-)
>
> The atmosphere is already there, but difficult to fine tune. There is a
> subtle scattering media beneath the street lamps which needs to be thickened
> a bit probably.
>
Oops!

Since the containers are quite visible I think Nekar's suggestion of 
filling the whole scene with media would be the right method. Lights 
with a fade_distance > 2 could be used for effect.

>> want to use/steal the print for my darkroom scene. ;-)
>
> You are welcome... ;-)
>
> Thomas
>

Thanks, Now I will have to cut some more paper.
I do like the idea of shared universes.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

There is something else to be aware of in this scene: The building walls are 
NOT straight! In particular the shop front at left is skewed, and I have 
included that in my image (I may have exagerated it a bit too).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:27:33 +0200, Thomas de Groot  
<tDOTdegroot@interdotnlanotherdotnet> wrote:

>
> "Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> schreef in bericht
> news:web.4d8e3a38d16f200e94d713cc0@news.povray.org...

>> A similar image_pattern circular glow around the lights (or a spherical
>> density
>> media) in addition to what you have already there would really tie the
>> lights
>> into the "atmosphere" of the shot - there's quite a harsh line of
>> separation
>> from the sky in the top light.
>
> OK, this is the crux of my trials and errors. At the lamp locations are  
> two
> spherical emission media with spherical densities. What I did however,  
> and
> maybe I should attenuate that, I shifted the center of the density some  
> way
> up. My intention was to deform the halo a bit like one seems to notice in
> the original: the halo is stronger below the lamp shade than above it.
> However this causes this sharp boundary you mention.
> In addition, a scattering media scatters the light cone a bit further.
>

I'm sure this will be corrected if you remove the spherical media at the  
lights and use the method I described earlier in conjunction with  
spotlights.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

> "Robert McGregor"<rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom>  schreef in bericht
> news:web.4d8e3a38d16f200e94d713cc0@news.povray.org...
>> Wow, I can really appreciate all the time you've put into the modelling,
>> and
>> matching up all the details in the scene assembly. A couple of things that
>> I
>> think would bring it closer to the original would include:
>
> Thank you indeed Robert :-)
>
>>
>> Use an image_pattern or pigment_pattern as a specularity/reflection mask
>> for the
>> pavement to break up the highlights more, to show variation of wetness
>> areas;
>> maybe with the (I'm assuming) height_field just a bit more jagged or
>> exaggerated
>> to show that the pavers are not all the same height.
>
> The pavement is made of individual stones (some 20k+ of them) using my
> Cobblestone macro. They are aligned on an irregular surface (could be
> increased some more) and have some irregularities in their placement. Each
> stone has its own random texture variation of course. So, I am not sure how
> to implement your suggestion here, but I shall think about it.
>

It's an old neibourhood. That street pavement is probably well over 70 
years old, it have seen both WWI and WWII.

In the photo, the cobble stones are well worn and rounded. Your's looks 
as if they are new and freshly layed.

Some are obviously brocken and are concave.
It also looks like some may be missing and the resulting hole filled 
with gravel or sand.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4d8f7ecc$1@news.povray.org...
> It's an old neibourhood. That street pavement is probably well over 70 
> years old, it have seen both WWI and WWII.

Absolutely.

>
> In the photo, the cobble stones are well worn and rounded. Your's looks as 
> if they are new and freshly layed.
> Some are obviously brocken and are concave.
> It also looks like some may be missing and the resulting hole filled with 
> gravel or sand.

Yes indeed. This should be the next implementation of my macro... Not sure 
however if I can get that finished for the TC-RTC deadline, but certainly 
worth the effort.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message