 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'smallscene.png' (944 KB)
Preview of image 'smallscene.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-online de> 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.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
moderate DOF is great for small scale objects, plus it provides good
anti-aliasing: without it, those edges are terribly sharp... :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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".
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> A single light source and a HDRI lighting with
> Jaimes kitchen.
Did you use interpolation with the image map? It looks awfully pixelated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
