 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/09/2014 15:15, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-9-2014 13:59, Stephen wrote:
>> So that's what it was.
>> I always had to view them with adjusted Gamma.
>>
>
> Yes, and I had a hell of a time to get a decent skin texture without
> knowing what the problem was... until Christoph jumped into the gamma
> pit and changed the world forever after :-)
>
It was one of the reasons that I have stayed away from radiosity. Too
much trouble to the fix materials I have as defaults. (Yours actually. :-) )
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Thanks indeed. However, the renders are not perfect as they were made
> with POV-Ray 3.6 which has/had gamma problems amongst other things. The
> result is rather washed out and with pale complexions for the Poser
> figures. With version 3.7 that belongs all to the past. If I have time,
> I shall provide new renders.
Version 3.7 should have better anti-aliasing for "De Dulle Griet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.09.2014 16:15, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 8-9-2014 13:59, Stephen wrote:
>> So that's what it was.
>> I always had to view them with adjusted Gamma.
>>
>
> Yes, and I had a hell of a time to get a decent skin texture without
> knowing what the problem was... until Christoph jumped into the gamma
> pit and changed the world forever after :-)
Ah, I remember that day as if it were yesterday - that day when I tamed
the Gamma Dragon...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'gammadragon_pov_scene_2014-09-09-0219.png' (744 KB)
Preview of image 'gammadragon_pov_scene_2014-09-09-0219.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-9-2014 21:15, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Version 3.7 should have better anti-aliasing for "De Dulle Griet."
No doubt.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-9-2014 19:15, Stephen wrote:
> It was one of the reasons that I have stayed away from radiosity. Too
> much trouble to the fix materials I have as defaults. (Yours actually.
> :-) )
You may consider updating?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-9-2014 2:26, clipka wrote:
> Ah, I remember that day as if it were yesterday - that day when I tamed
> the Gamma Dragon...
>
Has been a public holiday since then.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/09/2014 08:16, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-9-2014 19:15, Stephen wrote:
>> It was one of the reasons that I have stayed away from radiosity. Too
>> much trouble to the fix materials I have as defaults. (Yours actually.
>> :-) )
>
> You may consider updating?
>
I might at that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 8-9-2014 10:37, And wrote:
>
> > These two picture is so great.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks indeed. However, the renders are not perfect as they were made
> with POV-Ray 3.6 which has/had gamma problems amongst other things. The
> result is rather washed out and with pale complexions for the Poser
> figures. With version 3.7 that belongs all to the past. If I have time,
> I shall provide new renders.
>
> Thomas
I would like to learning the composition. Maybe what I should do is starting
from a simple scene then adding some active characters step by step. Because I
found that my renders only contain simple objects. That is boring.
The characters in your pictures are lifelike.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Thanks indeed. However, the renders are not perfect as they were made
> > with POV-Ray 3.6 which has/had gamma problems amongst other things. The
> > result is rather washed out and with pale complexions for the Poser
> > figures. With version 3.7 that belongs all to the past. If I have time,
> > I shall provide new renders.
> >
> > Thomas
If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > > Thanks indeed. However, the renders are not perfect as they were made
> > > with POV-Ray 3.6 which has/had gamma problems amongst other things. The
> > > result is rather washed out and with pale complexions for the Poser
> > > figures. With version 3.7 that belongs all to the past. If I have time,
> > > I shall provide new renders.
> > >
> > > Thomas
>
> If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
> on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-9-2014 17:35, And wrote:
> I would like to learning the composition. Maybe what I should do is starting
> from a simple scene then adding some active characters step by step. Because I
> found that my renders only contain simple objects. That is boring.
Composition is rather essential indeed to the appeal or the rejection of
a scene. However, simple objects are /not/ necessarily boring, I often
think the contrary. Many images posted here reach excellence just
because of their simplicity, something which I - personally - find
extremely difficult to achieve!
[I am not a professional artist so my comments come from what I have
learned over the years, from looking at and analysing very many objects
of art, especially paintings and engravings, and things learned from
texts, from artists, from classes.]
To help with composition, there is a nice include file by B Gimeno:
composition_guides.inc which I recommend to use, and - after a while
when the procedure is well-known - to break all the rules ;-) Because
too strict rules will also lead to boring results; the trick is to
diverge from the rules in such a fashion that some inner tension is
built in the image.
The include can be found here:
http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.4f71b4c0ca16910d51f818f50@news.povray.org%3E/
>
> The characters in your pictures are lifelike.
I am using Poser for the characters. To make them lifelike careful
observation of humankind is necessary, everywhere, always, under all
circumstances. The use of a mirror is also recommended ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-9-2014 20:23, And wrote:
> If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
> on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
No. Photorealism is not at all important to me. I happily turn away from
anything that might point in that direction :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-9-2014 4:53, jhu wrote:
> Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
>
Yes, that is something I need to explore.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 9-9-2014 20:23, And wrote:
> > If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
> > on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
>
> No. Photorealism is not at all important to me. I happily turn away from
> anything that might point in that direction :-)
>
> Thomas
Why?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> To help with composition, there is a nice include file by B Gimeno:
> composition_guides.inc which I recommend to use, and - after a while
> when the procedure is well-known - to break all the rules ;-) Because
> too strict rules will also lead to boring results; the trick is to
> diverge from the rules in such a fashion that some inner tension is
> built in the image.
>
> The include can be found here:
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.4f71b4c0ca16910d51f818f50@news.povray.org%3E/
Thank you. Maybe this is useful. Next time rendering I will try it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Because what I make is an /interpretation/ (at best) of reality, so to
speak, in the same manner as a painting depicts reality in its own way.
There are hyperrealist painters of course, interesting in their own way,
but I am more interested in a less rigid framework.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 9-9-2014 17:35, And wrote:
> > I would like to learning the composition. Maybe what I should do is starting
> > from a simple scene then adding some active characters step by step. Because I
> > found that my renders only contain simple objects. That is boring.
>
> Composition is rather essential indeed to the appeal or the rejection of
> a scene. However, simple objects are /not/ necessarily boring, I often
> think the contrary. Many images posted here reach excellence just
> because of their simplicity, something which I - personally - find
> extremely difficult to achieve!
>
> [I am not a professional artist so my comments come from what I have
> learned over the years, from looking at and analysing very many objects
> of art, especially paintings and engravings, and things learned from
> texts, from artists, from classes.]
>
> >
> > The characters in your pictures are lifelike.
>
> I am using Poser for the characters. To make them lifelike careful
> observation of humankind is necessary, everywhere, always, under all
> circumstances. The use of a mirror is also recommended ;-)
>
> Thomas
Thank you!
But sometimes observation of other people will interrupt each other. Why don't
you mind that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-9-2014 5:43, And wrote:
> But sometimes observation of other people will interrupt each other. Why don't
> you mind that?
>
Not when you are an alien :-D
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Not when you are an alien :-D
But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
people around you.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:24:22 +0200, Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg>
wrote:
> On 12-9-2014 5:43, And wrote:
>> But sometimes observation of other people will interrupt each other.
>> Why don't
>> you mind that?
>>
>
> Not when you are an alien :-D
>
Or an Observer...
> Thomas
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > Not when you are an alien :-D
>
> But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> people around you.
>
> Thomas
Hmmm OK. Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > > Not when you are an alien :-D
> >
> > But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> > that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> > people around you.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Hmmm OK. Thank you.
Don't mind that guy staring at you. It's just Thomas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > > On 12-9-2014 10:24, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > > > Not when you are an alien :-D
> > >
> > > But seriously, observation does not mean staring at people. It means
> > > that you are receptive to attitude, pose, expression, reactions of
> > > people around you.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> >
> > Hmmm OK. Thank you.
>
> Don't mind that guy staring at you. It's just Thomas.
Ha :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
> > If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
> > on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
>
> Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
very small error_bound?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.09.2014 22:11, schrieb And:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> "And" <49341109@ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
>>> If photorealistic is important to you, I suggest that researching the knowledge
>>> on physical based lighting. It has some concepts.
>>
>> Can use Uberpov's no cache stochastic rendering.
>
> Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
> very small error_bound?
The short answer is "yes".
The somewhat longer answer begins with, "that certainly depends on your
scene."
One thing that no_cache does is make the scene grainy (but
"anti-aliasing" mode 3 can be used to good effect to counter this effect
as much as desired, and I actually like it because it gives the image a
more lively appearance.)
What you will /not/ have with no_cache is any type of splotchy
artifacts; for instance, radiosity scenes with small detail on otherwise
flat surfaces tend to have bright blotches in the crevices, which are
very difficult to counteract with radiosity settings. Not so with
no_cache: This rendering mode is true to the smallest detail (provided
you throw enough computing time at it, otherwise the details may drown
in random noise).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 16.09.2014 22:11, schrieb And wrote
> >
> > Is there any difference between no cache result and typical radiosity even with
> > very small error_bound?
>
> The short answer is "yes".
>
> The somewhat longer answer begins with, "that certainly depends on your
> scene."
>
> One thing that no_cache does is make the scene grainy (but
> "anti-aliasing" mode 3 can be used to good effect to counter this effect
> as much as desired, and I actually like it because it gives the image a
> more lively appearance.)
>
> What you will /not/ have with no_cache is any type of splotchy
> artifacts; for instance, radiosity scenes with small detail on otherwise
> flat surfaces tend to have bright blotches in the crevices, which are
> very difficult to counteract with radiosity settings. Not so with
> no_cache: This rendering mode is true to the smallest detail (provided
> you throw enough computing time at it, otherwise the details may drown
> in random noise).
Oh, thank you. I'm occupied these days. I will post my new renders if I have.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> #5 De Dulle Griet is a wip from 2007-2008. I stopped its development
> because of conflicting ideas I had about what the image would be in the
> end: In fact, a double image, one showing 'reality' (the copy I attach
> here) and one showing Cathy's imagination. I may revisit some day...
I am sorry, but I cannot hold it in any more. The child in the background keeps
reminding me of former senator Larry Craig of Idaho. (Google Craig wide
stance.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-9-2014 20:08, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I am sorry, but I cannot hold it in any more. The child in the background keeps
> reminding me of former senator Larry Craig of Idaho. (Google Craig wide
> stance.)
>
>
<grin>
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
