 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 08.01.2014 15:25, schrieb clipka:
>
>> Here's my first result after getting the worst stuff sorted out (using
>> UberPOV of course).
>
> Further down the line, UberPOV gives me this.
>
> Which reminds me that I still have to make blurred reflections work
> properly with photons.
>
Does UberPov also support blurred transmission through transparent objects?
If not now, it could be on the to do list.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.01.2014 01:13, schrieb Alain:
>> Which reminds me that I still have to make blurred reflections work
>> properly with photons.
>>
>
> Does UberPov also support blurred transmission through transparent objects?
> If not now, it could be on the to do list.
It /is/ on the to do list ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 08.01.2014 15:25, schrieb clipka:
>
> > Here's my first result after getting the worst stuff sorted out (using
> > UberPOV of course).
>
> Further down the line, UberPOV gives me this.
>
> Which reminds me that I still have to make blurred reflections work
> properly with photons.
What is the time left on a render?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2014 21:05, LanuHum wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 08.01.2014 20:08, schrieb LanuHum:
>>> It is a little caustics:
>>
>> Looks to me like you added another light source. Don't - unless you
>> really know what you're doing, every bit of cheating makes the result
>> look less realistic.
>
> Yes, I added. :(
> But, It is a lot of big windows, unless it shouldn't be lighter in the room?
>
>
>
In Real Life, the eyes adapt themselves to the shadowy parts of a room
and, without you being aware of it, the lighter parts are then overexposed.
In photography as in ray-tracing, you need to find the balance between
the two extremes. Adding a light is possible but a feeble solution imho
and not really convincing. If you really want the shadows cleared more,
increase recursion_limit to 4 or 5.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-1-2014 21:34, clipka wrote:
> Am 08.01.2014 20:58, schrieb LanuHum:
>
>>> "srgb"
>>>
>>
>> How to write down?
>> example:
>> pigment{ color srgb < 0.5, 1, 0.3, 0.7>}?
>
> Exactly.
>
Not exactly: should be srgbf or srgbt as there are *four* parameters in
the vector ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> In Real Life, the eyes adapt themselves to the shadowy parts of a room
> and, without you being aware of it, the lighter parts are then overexposed.
>
> In photography as in ray-tracing, you need to find the balance between
> the two extremes. Adding a light is possible but a feeble solution imho
> and not really convincing. If you really want the shadows cleared more,
> increase recursion_limit to 4 or 5.
>
> Thomas
Thanks!
clipka, I noticed that in your work light on a floor in the room differs from
light on a floor in a mirror. It is correct?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> Not exactly: should be srgbf or srgbt as there are *four* parameters in
> the vector ;-)
>
> Thomas
Therefore I asked. Means, s - isn't adjustable parameter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-1-2014 9:48, LanuHum wrote:
> Therefore I asked. Means, s - isn't adjustable parameter
no indeed. It is /not/ adjustable.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 08.01.2014 15:25, schrieb clipka:
>
> > Here's my first result after getting the worst stuff sorted out (using
> > UberPOV of course).
>
> Further down the line, UberPOV gives me this.
>
> Which reminds me that I still have to make blurred reflections work
> properly with photons.
clipka, may I place your work on i.imgur.com?
I want that the picture was visible on the page our site.
While I placed the link
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.01.2014 09:41, schrieb LanuHum:
> clipka, I noticed that in your work light on a floor in the room differs from
> light on a floor in a mirror. It is correct?
I'm perfectly sure there is no such difference. It does differ from your
results, but that's because I adjusted the light source position to
better match the images produced with other renderers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
