 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:45:05 -0500, David Fontaine wrote:
>I'm still not happy with it, but it's trying my patience. I'll come back
>to it I guess.
It's really looking good, there's always more that can be done to an image,
so sometimes the trick is knowing when to stop.
>It looks washed out. I think the snow needs higher specular and the
>rockface lower...
Try lowering the gamma just a touch in the global settings, it might
save you a lot of work.
>The tracks are kinda cheap but it's the best I can do.
The set of tracks closest to the camera could do with being a bit more uneven
but they look good as they are, especially those converging tracks further
away.
>
>I'm probably overly self-critical though. Does it look like it has
>progressed?
Yes certainly.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:16am up 32 days, 7:30, 1 user, load average: 1.99, 1.53, 1.51
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> It's really looking good, there's always more that can be done to an image,
> so sometimes the trick is knowing when to stop.
Thanks! Hmm... I think you're right.
> Try lowering the gamma just a touch in the global settings, it might
> save you a lot of work.
Okay, thanks! Which one though (assumed, display...), I really don't know much of
how POV handles gamma.
> The set of tracks closest to the camera could do with being a bit more uneven
> but they look good as they are, especially those converging tracks further
> away.
Someone else just said the same thing. :) It's a bump_map (duh) so I can easily
distort it in the graphics editor (duh).
> >I'm probably overly self-critical though. Does it look like it has
> >progressed?
>
> Yes certainly.
After a bunch of overnight renders I'm more frustrated that it's not looking like
my mental picture rather than viewing it objectively ;-/
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It looks washed out.
BTW the black level has a real effect on this one. If you have lots of glare
try blocking the light and see if it looks any better.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:39CC0B21.E4E45459@faricy.net...
|
| It looks washed out. I think the snow needs higher specular and the
| rockface lower...
| The tracks are kinda cheap but it's the best I can do.
|
| I'm probably overly self-critical though. Does it look like it has
| progressed?
Self criticism can be either a good or bad thing.
Assuming this were an adjusted photo or as seen through a helmet then it
looks fine to me.
Except for one minor detail. The lightness of the domes shadowed areas is
brighter than that of the snow. Common sense says the snow should be the
brighter of the two things even though the dome gets more ambience from the
surroundings, since it is a shade darker to begin with.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
> Except for one minor detail. The lightness of the domes shadowed areas is
> brighter than that of the snow. Common sense says the snow should be the
> brighter of the two things even though the dome gets more ambience from the
> surroundings, since it is a shade darker to begin with.
I noticed that right off! :-/
Actually, the left side of the domes there isn't actually in shadow, it's a
very shallow angle, but you're right, the shadow area is still lighter. I was
using brilliance to lighten the snow but I should use less of it and more of
ambient.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the way this is working out. The vehicle in the foreground looks
best... not sure why, perhaps the lighting. The tracks, despite what you
said, actually look pretty good to me. Something about the rock texture
bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. Nice work Dave!
--
- Doug Eichenberg
http://www.getinfo.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
