 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> schreef in bericht
news:4d8dfb20@news.povray.org...
It makes me
> want to use/steal the print for my darkroom scene. ;-)
You are welcome... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:27:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot
<tDOTdegroot@interdotnlanotherdotnet> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Thomas
>
You could try making the scattering media fill the whole scene as in the
photograph. If everything disappears and you need more control, try using
a density_map with 0 density at the camera and high density further away
(that's what I did in my sunflower scene btw).
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmail com> schreef in bericht
news:op.vsyiv2maufxv4h@xena...
> You could try making the scattering media fill the whole scene as in the
> photograph. If everything disappears and you need more control, try using
> a density_map with 0 density at the camera and high density further away
> (that's what I did in my sunflower scene btw).
Presently, there is a background scattering media, in a separate light
group, for the night sky, and there is a scattering media in the street
which, however, does not reach the closest street lamp just behind the
camera. I did it that way for decreasing render time. I shall experiment
with your idea and include also the foreground in the media. The density
idea seems indeed a good suggestion here. Thanks a lot for that!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
Oh ... yeah I like the contrasting idea of almost all b/w objects then
one or two objects in color ... nice touch!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Oh ... yeah I like the contrasting idea of almost all b/w objects then
> one or two objects in color ... nice touch!
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.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> What is your impression?
>
> Thomas
pretty damn good so far!
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. :)
how did you do the fine details like the fences? Is it a texture?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/26/2011 01:10 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Oh ... yeah I like the contrasting idea of almost all b/w objects then
>> one or two objects in color ... nice touch!
>
> 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.
>
> -tgq
>
cool ... thanks for the "teaching" moment ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> I believe it is time to reveal the state-of-the-art of my latest work for
> the TC-RTC.
>
> Left, is the original photograph by Sabine Weiss of a night time Paris
> street in 1951, a period and place I remember well from my youth. Right, is
> my reconstruction so far, mostly meshes built in Silo. POV-Ray 3.7 RC3 as
> scene builder and renderer.
>
> I made a quotation to another of Weiss's prints which I leave you to
> discover yourselves ;-) (Google is my friend)
>
> This represents about two months work so far, with still a lot of details to
> fill in, not in the least the electricity cables.
>
> What is your impression?
>
> Thomas
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:
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.
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.
Overall, very impressive; this is looking great!
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> I believe it is time to reveal the state-of-the-art of my latest work for
> the TC-RTC.
>
....
>
> What is your impression?
It's most excellent, Thomas! Your attention to detail and proficiency at
modeling really come through.
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.
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...
All-in-all it's a superb modeling job and faithful reproduction of the original.
Good job!
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
