"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 25-11-2013 14:09, Fractracer wrote:
> > > Thanks, but now I don't know whre to go. Maybe use another light for the back, I
> > > try different things.
> > >
> > For me, this looks finished. I think that any additional light would
> > ruin the effect.
> >
> > Thomas
>
> I second Thomas. The only idea I have is to have more of the smaller (chrome?)
> spheres traced at the grid as if they were rolling into the direction of the
> cam. Only close to the centre line of the grid. May be you put a single smaller
> "fiery" sphere among them. But I wouldn't do much more. The scene is close to
> perfect IMO.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael

I have added some little spheres, but I have also modified the light:

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cgspherev2.png' (494 KB)

Preview of image 'cgspherev2.png'

On 28/11/13 22:35, Fractracer wrote:
> "MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 25-11-2013 14:09, Fractracer wrote:
>>>> Thanks, but now I don't know whre to go. Maybe use another light for the back, I
>>>> try different things.
>>>>
>>> For me, this looks finished. I think that any additional light would
>>> ruin the effect.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>> I second Thomas. The only idea I have is to have more of the smaller (chrome?)
>> spheres traced at the grid as if they were rolling into the direction of the
>> cam. Only close to the centre line of the grid. May be you put a single smaller
>> "fiery" sphere among them. But I wouldn't do much more. The scene is close to
>> perfect IMO.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
> 
> I have added some little spheres, but I have also modified the light:
> 

With the greatest of respect, I think this is going backwards. Too many
spheres and you're losing chiaroscuro .... but you're the artist. Your
decision.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> With the greatest of respect, I think this is going backwards. Too many
> spheres and you're losing chiaroscuro .... but you're the artist. Your
> decision.
>
> John
> --
> Protect the Earth
> It was not given to you by your parents
> You hold it in trust for your children

The problem is that I like the two images, I can't decide which is better. I
think I have to let it for a little time and return to work (or not) on it. The
image with "clair-obscur" seems not perfect (if the perfection exist) to me.

Post a reply to this message

"Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Here is another image of my work in progress for the CGSphere site.
> I've tried some new aspects of UberPov...
>
> I have found some rendering difference between the versions of Pov (v36, v36 and


I think all 3 versions of this image are good but this is my favourite.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

On 28/11/13 23:16, Fractracer wrote:
> Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> With the greatest of respect, I think this is going backwards. Too many
>> spheres and you're losing chiaroscuro .... but you're the artist. Your
>> decision.
>>
>> John
>> --
>> Protect the Earth
>> It was not given to you by your parents
>> You hold it in trust for your children
> 
> The problem is that I like the two images, I can't decide which is better. I
> think I have to let it for a little time and return to work (or not) on it. The
> image with "clair-obscur" seems not perfect (if the perfection exist) to me.
> 

As you intimate, perfection probably does not exist. I would submit both
and wait for the votes.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

>Doctor John  on date 29/11/2013 0.25 wrote:
> As you intimate, perfection probably does not exist. I would submit both
> and wait for the votes.
>
> John
>
I second that!
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Am 22.11.2013 09:07, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 21-11-2013 16:58, clipka wrote:
>> You'll need extra software to view all the file header contents though,
>> such as a hex editor.
>>
>
> Which explains my surprise ;-)

Just noted that Ive's fabulous IC image viewer will do the job, too: 
Press "I", and in the "Metadata" section click on "Tags".

Post a reply to this message

On 11-12-2013 2:41, clipka wrote:
> Am 22.11.2013 09:07, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 21-11-2013 16:58, clipka wrote:
>>> You'll need extra software to view all the file header contents though,
>>> such as a hex editor.
>>>
>>
>> Which explains my surprise ;-)
>
> Just noted that Ive's fabulous IC image viewer will do the job, too:
> Press "I", and in the "Metadata" section click on "Tags".
>


Incredible! I had not discovered that indeed. Thanks for the tip! IC is 
full of surprises.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.12.2013 09:46, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Just noted that Ive's fabulous IC image viewer will do the job, too:
>> Press "I", and in the "Metadata" section click on "Tags".
>
> Incredible! I had not discovered that indeed. Thanks for the tip! IC is
> full of surprises.
>
...or just a good example of software with a bad documentation.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

On 12-12-2013 14:40, Ive wrote:
> Am 11.12.2013 09:46, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> Just noted that Ive's fabulous IC image viewer will do the job, too:
>>> Press "I", and in the "Metadata" section click on "Tags".
>>
>> Incredible! I had not discovered that indeed. Thanks for the tip! IC is
>> full of surprises.
>>
> ...or just a good example of software with a bad documentation.
>

No, not really. I just have not had the curiosity to look at what 'info' 
was about :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message