"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> uhm, you're trying to say this isn't a photo?
>
Sorry, of course left part is a photo.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> Personally, I loathe Duchamp.

Unfortunately, I believe you confuse Duchamp's artwork and pedant people who
talks about him (me included, hum.. I hope not!). I can't blame you  if you
don't like Duchamp but imho his work is anything but pretentious. I have to
say  that it is very interesting and funny his urinal (Fountain) is yet a
controversial subject after 90 years.

>However, your image here...that's just amazing.

Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>extremely convincing, excellent work!
Thanks!

>So it is a bit disturbing, that the room with direct sunlight is dark,
>whereas the other room is bright, despite getting indirect light only.

I agree, maybe the lighting is not physically correct but I must say as an
artist that it is not an important point for me. I don't want to compare
myself with the painter Ingres, but if you look at carefully his
Odalisques, you'll can see her anatomy is completly wrong (e.g much more
vertebras).

>I think, you will not post the source, but perhaps you can post the camera,
>light and radiosity settings.

It's unnecessary I think, because honnestly, there is nothing special with
the code.
Camera is really a classical camera.
Lights are two regular arealights, orange*10 (sun) and bluish*2 (behind a
window on right)
and the simple pass radiosity settings are very basic and even very cheap (a
lot of artifacts around and on the window). And 4 days to render,
principally due to focal blur and reflection blur on door. (Thanks to Tim
Nikias for source)
I think you're mistaken on photorealism of my image, what is photorealism ?
just an illusion I think.
With my image, an outside HDRI + some appropriate photographs or drawings as
bitmap textures are enough for 80 per cent to create photorealistic
feeling...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'reference+intermstep.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'reference+intermstep.jpg'

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
>Amazing, one (or two) of the most photorealistic renders I have ever seen. I
>had to convince myself they were not photo's (still not 100%) by looking at
>the study images etc on your site.

Thanks!

>Is the outside scene HDR?

Bingo!
sorry, I've forgoten to mention it on my technical note.
That is most effective on stepladder reflection.

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:

> Impressive work!
>
> Thomas

as usual, thank you Thomas ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> WOW!
>
Thanks!

> The image on the left CAN'T be CGI! Kept looking for *any* sign of
> artificiality, but gave up.  Stunning!  Is that a Poser figure standing in
> the courtyard?
LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jellby <me### [at] privacynet> wrote:

> Can you ever close both doors in the right picture?
>
http://www.toutfait.com/unmaking_the_museum/Door,%2011%20rue%20Larrey.html
(sic)

Post a reply to this message

Rene Bui wrote:
> "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> 
>>Amazing, one (or two) of the most photorealistic renders I have ever seen. I
>>had to convince myself they were not photo's (still not 100%) by looking at
>>the study images etc on your site.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
>>Is the outside scene HDR?
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> sorry, I've forgoten to mention it on my technical note.
> That is most effective on stepladder reflection.

Sorry I'm still confused you said that the left portion is a photo. But 
if it's HDR then there is something in the scene that is rendered?

Amazing work on the right image by the way!

Post a reply to this message

Rene Bui wrote:
> If you're not familiar with:
> http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_bio_43.html
> http://www.toutfait.com/unmaking_the_museum/Door,%2011%20rue%20Larrey.html
> 
> best viewing and some new other images too:
> http://rene.bui.free.fr/index_en.html    (click digital)
> 
> nice week end !

Sorry not being familiar with Duchamp and not finding the first link of 
much help I looked him up on wiki to see what the discussions in this 
thread are about. For anyone else interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp

Hmm...I guess it's not so much Duchamp that bothers me, but the art 
world's view of his work *as* art...when it was, in essence, intented to 
be the antithesis or a parody thereof.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message