 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
Still busy with my 5-year project! A different view of the interior of
brighten the finished image a little as it came out too dark, but it
looks much better than without R. It is a view that appears on a picture
postcard I bought over there... At least, I try to let it look like
that.
The lights trouble me the most; lots of the texture is still too even; I
know, I know.
What do you think?
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'A14329aR3.jpg' (82 KB)
Preview of image 'A14329aR3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not bad! It appears kinda uniform at first, but it doesn't seem to
detract. I notice a lot of subtelties in the light and shadow that aren't
readily apparent, I think they help.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tony[B]
Subject: Re: Mezquita revisited - A14329aR3.jpg [1/1]
Date: 29 Mar 2001 18:31:31
Message: <3ac3c5d3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's a beautiful render, Sander...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mick Hazelgrove
Subject: Re: Mezquita revisited - A14329aR3.jpg [1/1]
Date: 30 Mar 2001 03:03:29
Message: <3ac43dd1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wonderful - wish I had the patience to do all the CSG needed for interiors.
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Mezquita revisited - A14329aR3.jpg [1/1]
Date: 30 Mar 2001 03:24:31
Message: <3AC442BF.28F75BD9@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Still busy with my 5-year project! A different view of the interior of
> brighten the finished image a little as it came out too dark, but it
> looks much better than without R. It is a view that appears on a picture
> postcard I bought over there... At least, I try to let it look like
> that.
> The lights trouble me the most; lots of the texture is still too even; I
> know, I know.
> What do you think?
Nice, there seems to be a lot of light coming from above in the
background, is that wanted?
If the render is too dark, just increase the ambient of the light emitting
objects.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Peter Warren
Subject: Re: Mezquita revisited - A14329aR3.jpg [1/1]
Date: 30 Mar 2001 06:09:44
Message: <3ac46978@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander,
Never one to criticize your work,
especially looking at it in 16 colors.
Still, I wonder...
what is at the end of the tunnel?
Only the best,
Peter
war### [at] hotmailcom
Sander wrote in message ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:03:05 +0200, Sander <san### [at] stolscom> wrote:
<image>
>Still busy with my 5-year project! A different view of the interior of
<snip>
>What do you think?
The lighting seems very realistic to me Sander.
I like the timescale! A little too much polish on the floor though :-)
It needs some sort of focus point to give more interest and scale to the scene. I
take it
that this is how it really looks, so you can't add a sculpture - perhaps you could add
a
dreaded poser figure or two ?
David
----------------------
dav### [at] hamiltonitecom
http://hamiltonite.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you all for the encouraging words!
There is some help I would like to have with radiosity: I post the same
scene with and without R. What causes the change in colour and why does
the +R image look so flat?
Settings:
<code begin>
global_settings
{
assumed_gamma 2.2
ambient_light color rgb .25
ini_option "+QR"
radiosity {
pretrace_start 1/16
pretrace_end 1/128
count 35
nearest_count 5
error_bound 1.8
recursion_limit 3
low_error_factor .5
gray_threshold 0.0
minimum_reuse 0.015
brightness 1
adc_bailout 0.01/2
normal on
}
}
<code end>
Just a low-quality R to start with.
Is it the assumed_gamma? or the ambient_light?
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'M_R_R.jpg' (52 KB)
Preview of image 'M_R_R.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in <MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG> Sander wrote:
>What causes the change in colour and why does
>the +R image look so flat?
>Settings:
<snip code>
>Just a low-quality R to start with.
>Is it the assumed_gamma? or the ambient_light?
The use of ambient_light makes the scene look flat as it brightens it.
You can probably delete it when using radiosity.
Also have a look at the diffuse values in the finish of your textures,
it determines the basic brightnes of a texture when using radiosity.
You use an assumed_gamma of 2.2, together with the preset
display_gamma of 2.2 this results in an image with a gamma of 1. A
gamma 1 picture will look somewhat dark on a gamma 2.2 monitor. It may
be that you compensated this by using stronger lights (value bigger
than 1) and the ambient_light.
When you set the assumed_gamma to 1, the image will have a gamma of
2.2. This will look more natural on your monitor. You may have to
reduce light intensities.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:03:05 +0200, Sander wrote:
>What do you think?
I think awesome!
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:17am up 60 days, 2:01, 2 users, load average: 1.06, 1.02, 1.04
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
