 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bluetree wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
>>surely that big cat face in the middle? oops...
>
>
> Yes... ^^
> (too obvious, I finally know)
> Next time it will be quite harder to notice, I'll promise! :)
>
The artist Salvador Dali did this sort of thing. You can see one
example at www.abcgallery.com/D/dali/dali54.html
(Slave Market with the Disappearing Bust of Voltaire).
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:17:27 -0800, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> bluetree wrote:
>>>
...<snip>...
> Hmm, yes. Then I would guess that he's either referencing the picture
> of the family with the dog, or the "P" symbol on the wall.
>
Somebody P'd on the wall??
(Oops... Sorry, couldn't reist.) ;-)
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"bluetree" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.479ccb3761577883b72b7b3e0@news.povray.org...
> The idea was to do an image, where a humans brain would see more than the
> simple
> given picture.
> To make a face/object, which isn't there, but would be translated by our
> brain
> to an image...
> Ah, not very well explained. Sorry. I wanted to use one of our
> evolutionary
> skills, which would save us in wilderness... ah, wrong... ok... :-)
> I'll try to follow all your advices and then ask you again? Would that be
> okay?
> Again thank you very much for your help!
>
Pareidolia.
Iirc, this was discussed here some time ago... I forget when.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great.
Trying to adapt all advices, the scene looks quite different. :-D
Thank you!
The "checkered" floor isn't a checkered floor. It's the same texture, but this
time with reflection and a normal map.
I deleted the window's glass, because (with it) I couldn't get the light rays
into the room...
The plant pots have now two different textures for inside and outside.
I put a spot_light and an area light outside, opened the door and changed the
texture of the 'box' with the ferns.
But I made something wrong. Somehow the candlelights are not visible anymore, it
doesn't matter, what I tried to change, they don't look lighted anymore...
Trying to increase the bumb-depth of the carpets didn't change anything. (It's
57 (strange?))
The render time is enormous.
8 minutes (without radiosity) to more than 4,5 hours (with radiosity). Perhaps a
matter of fact, that I tried to set normal on at the radiosity settings? ;)
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'interior_test_2.jpg' (321 KB)
Preview of image 'interior_test_2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 13:09:10 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>Wow, thanks! I have to change quite a lot, I see.
That is what peer review is about. And most of what I said was to get rid of the
shadow. Duh! I've never been able to find any Easter eggs. Not even the one on
Pov-Ray 3.5 IIRC.
>One reason why I hardly didn't dare to post it at first. Thanks for the detailed
>advices.
>I made the mistake to put the candle lights inside two different sphere sweeps,
>so the walls get this colour...
I like that effect and would like to see the file, if you don't mind. you could
zip it and post it to http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.misc/
>To tell the truth, the walls are blue with normal map, which should imitate a
>stucco structure.
>So these colours are from the candle lights. ^^
>A nice side effect, that I didn't change, because I also liked it more than the
>blue walls before.
>I didn't know what to do with the plant pots. That's a very good idea. I'll
>change it immediately.
>Yes, (sheepish), I meat that construction on the floor....
>
It is me who is sheepish :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I do not mind. I'm glad somebody likes it. ;)
Should I only post the "old" version with the candle lights, which looks very
artificial
or also the second one, where I tried to follow all advices, but have the
problem, that my candles aren't looking bright anymore?
Perhaps somebody would see all bad mistakes at one glance and could tell me,
what to change... :)
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:12:38 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>I do not mind. I'm glad somebody likes it. ;)
>Should I only post the "old" version with the candle lights, which looks very
>artificial
>or also the second one, where I tried to follow all advices, but have the
>problem, that my candles aren't looking bright anymore?
>Perhaps somebody would see all bad mistakes at one glance and could tell me,
>what to change... :)
>
>Regards
> bluetree
>
>
Why not both? I said p.b.misc because you might want to send the bsp file. You
never know there might be a bug in Bishop3D.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:12:38 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >I do not mind. I'm glad somebody likes it. ;)
> >Should I only post the "old" version with the candle lights, which looks very
> >artificial
> >or also the second one, where I tried to follow all advices, but have the
> >problem, that my candles aren't looking bright anymore?
> >Perhaps somebody would see all bad mistakes at one glance and could tell me,
> >what to change... :)
> >
> >Regards
> > bluetree
> >
> >
> Why not both? I said p.b.misc because you might want to send the bsp file. You
> never know there might be a bug in Bishop3D.
>
> Regards
> Stephen
To be allowed to post the bsp-files would be fine. I'll do it.
I have to split them, because the files are together about 2MB in size...
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bluetree nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/27 13:11:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>> Nothing really wrong with this image, you know. A first scene? Infinitely
>> better than my first ever!
>> Try radiosity, just the default values, and see where it gets you. You will
>> get help on the way.
>>
>> Thomas
>
> That would be wonderful! Thank you!
> I read a little about radiosity, but I'm not sure about all options and how to
> use them exactly.
> I'll try it. Should I post the result (better: can I post it? The images are
> very big in size. I don't know why...)
>
>
The best way to learn about radiosity is to start with a relatively simple
sample scene using the default values. After that, you experiment changing the
various parameters, one at the time, and see the effect.
There are several radiosity sample scenes that come with POV-Ray, try them,
alter them...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you've gained twenty pounds
sitting at the computer, but can't tell because your beard covers your stomach.
Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bluetree nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/28 04:54:
> Great.
> Trying to adapt all advices, the scene looks quite different. :-D
> Thank you!
> The "checkered" floor isn't a checkered floor. It's the same texture, but this
> time with reflection and a normal map.
> I deleted the window's glass, because (with it) I couldn't get the light rays
> into the room...
One window pane = 2 trace levels. You may have reatched the max_trace_level.
Also, each face count against the radiosity recursion_limit.
Anyway, it's effect is negligeable as the two faces are parallel.
> The plant pots have now two different textures for inside and outside.
> I put a spot_light and an area light outside, opened the door and changed the
> texture of the 'box' with the ferns.
> But I made something wrong. Somehow the candlelights are not visible anymore, it
> doesn't matter, what I tried to change, they don't look lighted anymore...
The cause depend on what you use for those. Can you post the code for the candle
flames? (on povray.binaries.scene-files)
If you use a media, you may need to add "media on" in the radiosity block.
> Trying to increase the bumb-depth of the carpets didn't change anything. (It's
> 57 (strange?))
> The render time is enormous.
> 8 minutes (without radiosity) to more than 4,5 hours (with radiosity). Perhaps a
> matter of fact, that I tried to set normal on at the radiosity settings? ;)
Normal calculation in radiosity is very expensive.
>
> Regards
> bluetree
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
