"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>extremely convincing, excellent work!
Thanks!

>So it is a bit disturbing, that the room with direct sunlight is dark,
>whereas the other room is bright, despite getting indirect light only.

I agree, maybe the lighting is not physically correct but I must say as an
artist that it is not an important point for me. I don't want to compare
myself with the painter Ingres, but if you look at carefully his
Odalisques, you'll can see her anatomy is completly wrong (e.g much more
vertebras).

>I think, you will not post the source, but perhaps you can post the camera,
>light and radiosity settings.

It's unnecessary I think, because honnestly, there is nothing special with
the code.
Camera is really a classical camera.
Lights are two regular arealights, orange*10 (sun) and bluish*2 (behind a
window on right)
and the simple pass radiosity settings are very basic and even very cheap (a
lot of artifacts around and on the window). And 4 days to render,
principally due to focal blur and reflection blur on door. (Thanks to Tim
Nikias for source)
I think you're mistaken on photorealism of my image, what is photorealism ?
just an illusion I think.
With my image, an outside HDRI + some appropriate photographs or drawings as
bitmap textures are enough for 80 per cent to create photorealistic
feeling...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'reference+intermstep.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'reference+intermstep.jpg'