 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let's start new thread :)
I added two new buildings and rearranged objects.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'capriccio.jpg' (72 KB)
Preview of image 'capriccio.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
>Let's start new thread :)
>I added two new buildings and rearranged objects.
>
>Gena.
>
when this gets textured it will be just wonderfull !!
maybe the possition of the farest white building is a bit strange though.
it doesn't look logical.
nice work, good luck with it
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hey all
this looks soooo cool! it's so amazing to see how all you pov-gurus do this
one is such a short time. it would take me ages to do sth like it...
you do a really wonderful job! keep up the good work!
florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena Obukhov wrote:
>
> Let's start new thread :)
> I added two new buildings and rearranged objects.
>
The buildings look very good.
I made some try for the clouds with media - not sure whether this is a
good idea since it is slow and will lead to problems with large size
renders.
We really need a consistend lighting setup that does not get modified too
much in the future. What is currently in the package has several flaws:
- no 'assumed_gamma 1'
- ambient_light -0.2 (should be 0.0)
- radiosity settings:
* recursion_limit 3 (won't be feasible for the final render and is
unnecessarily slow for test runs
* gray_threshold > 0 (not realistic)
- too large area_light for the sun
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'capriccio_cloud1.jpg' (273 KB)
Preview of image 'capriccio_cloud1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was also heading for media-clouds, and I've had good
experience with using them, even with large size renders.
And it might be a good idea to render the clouds in one
pass, and image-map them later, but using the same
lighting setup.
Didn't have the time yet to begin with it, cause I'm feverishly
trying to finish my Water-Surface-Simulation...
Bit I agree on the lighting setup needing to be finalized
before attempting good clouds.
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
>
>
> Gena Obukhov wrote:
> >
> > Let's start new thread :)
> > I added two new buildings and rearranged objects.
> >
>
> The buildings look very good.
>
> I made some try for the clouds with media - not sure whether this is a
> good idea since it is slow and will lead to problems with large size
> renders.
>
> We really need a consistend lighting setup that does not get modified too
> much in the future. What is currently in the package has several flaws:
>
> - no 'assumed_gamma 1'
> - ambient_light -0.2 (should be 0.0)
> - radiosity settings:
> * recursion_limit 3 (won't be feasible for the final render and is
> unnecessarily slow for test runs
> * gray_threshold > 0 (not realistic)
> - too large area_light for the sun
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> We really need a consistend lighting setup that does not get modified too
> much in the future. What is currently in the package has several flaws:
>
> - no 'assumed_gamma 1'
> - ambient_light -0.2 (should be 0.0)
> - radiosity settings:
> * recursion_limit 3 (won't be feasible for the final render and is
> unnecessarily slow for test runs
> * gray_threshold > 0 (not realistic)
> - too large area_light for the sun
I agree. Though I usually model all objects first and then set the lights.
But it doesn't work in this situation when different people work on
different objects :) So if you can please do those changes assuming
that we won't add any other buildings to the scene besides existing
place-holders. In this case you could also work with light position/shadows.
Then we could freeze that light for a while :)
I would have only the following requirements to the light(s)
- it should be warm (golden hues) to mimic XVIII century painting
and that time of the day (around 4-6 p.m.)
- those buildings on the right side should also have some visible details
it should not look like black hole :) Maybe we need some
shadowless light somewhere in front of those buildings (?)
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
...
> I would have only the following requirements to the light(s)
> - it should be warm (golden hues) to mimic XVIII century painting
> and that time of the day (around 4-6 p.m.)
> - those buildings on the right side should also have some visible details
> it should not look like black hole :) Maybe we need some
> shadowless light somewhere in front of those buildings (?)
What about simply using lighting that is as physically accurate as is
practical, say, with LightSys
(http://www.ignorancia.org/t_lightsys.php), then people can post-process
as they see fit, depending on whether they want a photographic,
painterly, alien or whatever feel to the image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias v2.0" wrote:
>
> I was also heading for media-clouds, and I've had good
> experience with using them, even with large size renders.
> And it might be a good idea to render the clouds in one
> pass, and image-map them later, but using the same
> lighting setup.
Yes, that is probably a good idea.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Edward Coffey wrote:
>
> What about simply using lighting that is as physically accurate as is
> practical, say, with LightSys
> (http://www.ignorancia.org/t_lightsys.php), then people can post-process
> as they see fit, depending on whether they want a photographic,
> painterly, alien or whatever feel to the image.
Well, this project is obviously not about giving intelligent suggestions
but doing things yourself. If you have created an appropriate lighting
using that system you should post it.
Post processing only makes sense if you apply it to a 16 bit render and
for such a cooperative project this is surely not a good idea (everyone
should be able to render the image in its final appearance).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3E91D294.6D288E66@gmx.de...
>
> - no 'assumed_gamma 1'
> - ambient_light -0.2 (should be 0.0)
> - radiosity settings:
> * recursion_limit 3 (won't be feasible for the final render and is
> unnecessarily slow for test runs
> * gray_threshold > 0 (not realistic)
Oops, sorry. Those were my fault. I was trying anything I could to get it
looking like I wanted to see it (meaning only the dome part really). Wasn't
mimicking the painting with that.
About the assumed gamma though... I just can never get a nice high-contrast
image I like with 1.0 and so I always leave it out or make it similar to my
Display_Gamma. It's force of habit and so I can't adjust to it being 1.0.
Old debate, I know, so I'm not going to push the idea of not using it. I'm
just stating my opinion.
Your clouds look interesting. Shadows from the clouds might prove difficult
to impossible to set up exactly as needed, if copying the painting closely
anyway. Thing is, it seems an important aspect to match to the painting too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
