 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Never mind. I gotcha. The first display window, not the first window to the
outside. Sorry 'bout that. Since I will be replacing the displayed items, I
haven't worried too much about it.
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> Here is a *much* better version of this image, thanks to everyone who yelled
> at me about radiosity.
Looking much better than before (although the aliasing hurts). I was
gonna suggest cranking up the daylight a bit more, but then I saw that
it was already blowing out the spot in the corner next to the exhibit in
the back.
Suggestion: make the ceiling lights a bit dimmer and more yellowish;
fluorescent lights are nothing like daylight. (Or maybe you could try
grafting Jaime's lights to your scene; I think he has a setting for
fluorescent lighting.)
I look forward to future versions!
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Suggestion: make the ceiling lights a bit dimmer and more yellowish;
> fluorescent lights are nothing like daylight.
Now that you say that, you are quite right. (It looks even worse looking
through first floor doors.) I'll mess around with that.
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is magnitudes better than the previous version. I can't wait to see
the final result.
Cheers,
Lance.
thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au
thehandle - www.thehandle.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:web.41bcc2ce70f78af0979b4e920@news.povray.org...
Yes it's much better!!
I won't tell you abour AA, as you allready got advices on that subject...
My main suggestion is to push your camera roughly two short feet (or one
meter) to the left because the foreground display window fills nearly 50% of
the image.
As we generally look at th direction we walk, I feel the impression that I
shall hit the display window with my right shoulder ( you could object that
I should not complain because it's better than with the wrong shoulder but
it' off topic ;-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is a larger, more detailed render from overnight/today. Still not
great, I lost a little of that mid-ground lighting that was perfect, but
I'm still fooling around with it.
-S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'museum.jpg' (101 KB)
Preview of image 'museum.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> Here is a larger, more detailed render from overnight/today. Still not
> great, I lost a little of that mid-ground lighting that was perfect, but
> I'm still fooling around with it.
Looks really good! A little texturing and it'll be very close to
photorealistic.
The only thing I can suggest is that the closest exhibit should probably
have a sun shadow on it. If the outside light is as bright as it seems
to be, it seems strange that it doesn't cast a shadow behind the sphere.
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Thorn <mik### [at] realitycheckmultimedia com> wrote:
>
> The only thing I can suggest is that the closest exhibit should probably
> have a sun shadow on it. If the outside light is as bright as it seems
> to be, it seems strange that it doesn't cast a shadow behind the sphere.
>
The displays are [going to be] a 'captured moment' i.e. from another time
('tempus recipere'? Any latin geeks out there?). So they will not be
affected as much by the museum's lighing. It will look better when I get
the exhibits finished.
Update: I finally got the walls to look white! Yay! Will post (possibly
tomorrow) another render when it is done.
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Here is a larger, more detailed render from overnight/today. Still not
> great, I lost a little of that mid-ground lighting that was perfect, but
> I'm still fooling around with it.
>
> -S
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Haaaaaaa :) realy better with AA ! now I can see details ... the floor
bump is very nice :) ... I won't tell you about coincident surfaces as
you allready know it, but if you take a look at your two characters, it
looks like their feet pierce the balcony :-/ (a black thing near the
wall under the balcony).
Another thing is that the wall under the balcony seems to have no
thickness, but this might be due to the IOR.
Thierry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thierry CHARLES <thi### [at] les-charlesnospamnet> wrote:
>
> Haaaaaaa :) realy better with AA ! now I can see details ... the floor
> bump is very nice :) ... I won't tell you about coincident surfaces as
> you allready know it, but if you take a look at your two characters, it
> looks like their feet pierce the balcony :-/ (a black thing near the
> wall under the balcony).
Ooh. Looks like it must be a radiosity artifact; I see what you mean, so I
just did a super-quick render to make sure, and they do appear to be
solidly ON the balcony. I'll have to watch that corner, though.
> Another thing is that the wall under the balcony seems to have no
> thickness, but this might be due to the IOR.
>
A friend of mine noticed this, too. The edge of the display case matches up
perfectly with the edge of the image. I didn't mean to do this, but it
happened, so I left it that way. Looks like I'll have to bump my view over
a touch.
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
