 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are plenty of pictures like this in tutorials, etc, but this doodle
turned out to be such a nice demonstration of how radiosity can make an
image come alive that I thought I had to share it.
Leftmost image - no radiosity, single light source.
Middle image - (fairly) basic radiosity, identical geometry, single light
source.
Rightmost image - (slightly) tweaked radiosity, (slightly) improved
geometry, background, single light source.
Although there are still quite a lot of artifacts, the increase in realism
is breathtaking.
Actually, the third image is a double-pass render, the reasons for which may
be interesting to some. You should be able to see (from reflections, etc)
that there is glass in all the openings. I found that using radiosity with
the glass darkened the whole image considerably, because the radiosity
samples destined for the sky were being intercepted by the glass panes.
Using a first pass without glass corrected this to some extent, although
obviously supplementary samples will again be intercepted. Does anyone know
of another way to avoid this problem? Hopefully I'm missing something
bleedin' obvious... :)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'radios.jpg' (152 KB)
Preview of image 'radios.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've had to do the same thing. I haven't tried this, but if you use
no_radiosity (megapov), it may leave the glass out of all radiosity
calculations
altogether - but I'm not sure it will give the result you want.
I've been a fan of the two pass since my last IRTC entry - so in my opinion
that's the way to go.
-S
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> There are plenty of pictures like this in tutorials, etc, but this doodle
> turned out to be such a nice demonstration of how radiosity can make an
> image come alive that I thought I had to share it.
>
Thanks Bill, nice work! Are you able to share this scene file?
George
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.44686c92293b371731f01d10@news.povray.org...
>
> Actually, the third image is a double-pass render, the reasons for which
may
> be interesting to some. You should be able to see (from reflections, etc)
> that there is glass in all the openings. I found that using radiosity with
> the glass darkened the whole image considerably, because the radiosity
> samples destined for the sky were being intercepted by the glass panes.
> Using a first pass without glass corrected this to some extent, although
> obviously supplementary samples will again be intercepted. Does anyone
know
> of another way to avoid this problem? Hopefully I'm missing something
> bleedin' obvious... :)
>
Yes, the double pass like you describe it, is the best way to go about it.
I learned that from Tim Nikias's "Windows Room" which was the basis for my
ice age scene last year.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"George Pantazopoulos" <go### [at] tomyaboutpage> wrote:
> Thanks Bill, nice work! Are you able to share this scene file?
I'll finish it up to a 'final' state over the next few days and post it
then. If it's just the radiosity settings you're interested in, I've gone
over to using the two-pass recipe detailed on Tim Nikias' excellent site:
http://www.nolights.de/projects/radiosity/radiosity.html
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> Yes, the double pass like you describe it, is the best way to go about it.
> I learned that from Tim Nikias's "Windows Room" which was the basis for my
> ice age scene last year.
Oh well. I think I need two-pass radiosity on scenes like this anyway...
switching some objects on and off at the same time is no extra trouble
really!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
