Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 29/10/2012 6:11 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> >
> >> moderate DOF is great for small scale objects, plus it provides good
> >> anti-aliasing:  without it, those edges are terribly sharp... :p
> >
> > Thanks for your answer, but I'm only a statistician. What does DOF mean? I think
> > it is not "degrees of freedom".
> >
>
> I guess depth of field.
>
> --
> Regards
>      Stephen

May be,
but I most liked to have a comment to my picture.
Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > moderate DOF is great for small scale objects, plus it provides good
> > anti-aliasing:  without it, those edges are terribly sharp... :p
>
> Thanks for your answer, but I'm only a statistician. What does DOF mean? I think
> it is not "degrees of freedom".

"Depth of field," or focal blur in POV-Ray terms, makes the most sense in this
context.  A larger aperture makes the scene appear smaller; houses and cars can
be made to look like toy miniatures with a large enough aperture.  With no focal
blur at all, the aperture is infinitely small.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> "Depth of field," or focal blur in POV-Ray terms, makes the most sense in this
> context.  A larger aperture makes the scene appear smaller; houses and cars can
> be made to look like toy miniatures with a large enough aperture.  With no focal
> blur at all, the aperture is infinitely small.

P.S. The human eye has a maximum aperture of 7 mm in dim lighting, reducing to
about 5 mm as you get older.  It is smaller in bright lighting.  You can use
this factoid to give the impression of scale in your scenes.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> "MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> > > moderate DOF is great for small scale objects, plus it provides good
> > > anti-aliasing:  without it, those edges are terribly sharp... :p
> >
> > Thanks for your answer, but I'm only a statistician. What does DOF mean? I think
> > it is not "degrees of freedom".
>
> "Depth of field," or focal blur in POV-Ray terms, makes the most sense in this
> context.  A larger aperture makes the scene appear smaller; houses and cars can
> be made to look like toy miniatures with a large enough aperture.  With no focal
> blur at all, the aperture is infinitely small.

Hm, I'm a little bit puzzled. There is no focal blur in this scene. It's just a
first WIP for old roman glasses, buried two thousand years in the ground.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 29/10/2012 7:30 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 29/10/2012 6:11 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
>>>
>>>> moderate DOF is great for small scale objects, plus it provides good
>>>> anti-aliasing:  without it, those edges are terribly sharp... :p
>>>
>>> Thanks for your answer, but I'm only a statistician. What does DOF mean? I think
>>> it is not "degrees of freedom".
>>>
>>
>> I guess depth of field.
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>       Stephen
>
> May be,
> but I most liked to have a comment to my picture.
> Best regards,
> Michael
>

Okay, I like the modelling very much. Although I would say that it is in 

It looks repro, more 16th Cent. to my eyes. It is far too perfect and 
the handle looks wrong too fluted.
But I like it and would like to see more WIPs.
What is the max_trace_level and how long did it take to render?



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Hm, I'm a little bit puzzled. There is no focal blur in this scene. It's just a
> first WIP for old roman glasses, buried two thousand years in the ground.

That's exactly the point.  Nemesis was suggesting that you /should/ include some
focal blur in the final scene.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-10-2012 17:55, MichaelJF wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> here is a first WIP from my roman glasses project. At the moment it is in a way
> in a laboratory environment. A single light source and a HDRI lighting with
> Jaimes kitchen. Next idea is to put the object in a mere natural environment to
> see what it looks there. At the moment I think it's a first approximation to the
> topic but I'm not really content. Suggestions for improvements are very welcome.
> At the moment I use two granite media (one scattering and the same absorbing)
> and likewise two agate-media.
>

Good start Michael. There are pros and cons about the laboratory 
environment for judging the glass but that is as it may be.

I wonder if there should not be more iridisation, iirc, because of the 
age of Roman glass.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> Good start Michael. There are pros and cons about the laboratory
> environment for judging the glass but that is as it may be.
>
> I wonder if there should not be more iridisation, iirc, because of the
> age of Roman glass.
>

Thank you and all the others. I haven't understood the hint of nemesis since I
never encountered the phrase "depth of field" end espicially not its
abbreviation so far. So thanks to Cousin Ricky to point this out. I will use
focal blur within the finalisation of the scene. Stephen is right, the shape is
too perfect - despite the leaning bottle neck - but I will focus at the material
first. No, first I will put it out of the laboratory. A window sill overlooking
a garden for an unknown reason, with water and a flower ...

BTW the romans really crafted such glass ware. I modelled along an example from
a book about the topic. I exchanged the handle from an other glass but it is not
too much fluted. max_trace_level was 30 and the rendering time a little bit over
an hour at my new portable core i7.

Thanks for the suggestions and best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.10.2012 um 19:47 schrieb MichaelJF:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>> Good start Michael. There are pros and cons about the laboratory
>> environment for judging the glass but that is as it may be.
>>
>> I wonder if there should not be more iridisation, iirc, because of the
>> age of Roman glass.
>>
> 
> Thank you and all the others. I haven't understood the hint of nemesis since I
> never encountered the phrase "depth of field" end espicially not its
> abbreviation so far. So thanks to Cousin Ricky to point this out. I will use
> focal blur within the finalisation of the scene. Stephen is right, the shape is
> too perfect - despite the leaning bottle neck - but I will focus at the material
> first. No, first I will put it out of the laboratory. A window sill overlooking
> a garden for an unknown reason, with water and a flower ...
> 
> BTW the romans really crafted such glass ware. I modelled along an example from
> a book about the topic. I exchanged the handle from an other glass but it is not
> too much fluted. max_trace_level was 30 and the rendering time a little bit over
> an hour at my new portable core i7.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions and best regards
> Michael
> 
Finally, I decided not to use DOF. Although this would have yielded a 
better artistic result, it would certainly have extended the render time 
considerably, which was now just under a week (6d 22h 43m, of which 2d 
6h 30m for the collection of photons).

I have added some irregularities in the decoration of the decanter. 
Unfortunately, they are difficult to recognise. In fact, a lot of 
glassware from this period was amazingly perfect. Here Stephen was only 
partly right.

All the objects depicted are modelled after excavation findings in 
Rhineland-Palatinate and the Netherlands, which are dated back to around 
200 AD.

Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '20240511room3_roman_glasses_1920.png' (2990 KB)

Preview of image '20240511room3_roman_glasses_1920.png'

Hi(gh)!

On 18.05.24 21:00, MichaelJF wrote:
> Am 30.10.2012 um 19:47 schrieb MichaelJF: [almost twelve years later]
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote: [2012]

> I have added some irregularities in the decoration of the decanter. 
> Unfortunately, they are difficult to recognise. In fact, a lot of 
> glassware from this period was amazingly perfect. Here Stephen was only 
> partly right.
> 
> All the objects depicted are modelled after excavation findings in 
> Rhineland-Palatinate and the Netherlands, which are dated back to around 
> 200 AD.
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> 

Congrats, thread necromancing at its best! You almost broke my record...

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar


-- 
VBI BENE, IBI BACTRIA!

Post a reply to this message