"Mike Andrews" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > "Mike Andrews" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > Another week, another scene!
> > >
> >
> > Beautiful composition, beautiful lighting--just top notch.
>
> Thanks very much. I'm pleased with the way it came out too :-)
>
> >
> > I see(?) that you're using a sky_sphere or HDRI to add lighting from above;
> > have you tried the scene without that (just using the panel lighting?) I'm
> > working on a scene of that kind, and (in POV-Ray), the radiosity settings
> > are very exacting; but no matter how much I tweak, artifacts/anomolies show
> > up that I just can't seem to get rid of. They come and go depending on where
> > the camera is placed and how small the ambient "light" sources are.  Just
> > curious if you've run into this as well.
>
> I've put the scene (without the figure) on p.b.s-f if you want to see for
> yourself.
>
> For this scene I'm just using a sky sphere with a gradient.

Amazing. The reflections look like an actual image out there somewhere.

> I did try a
> couple of test renders without the sky in, just to see what the light
> contribution from the panels was, but I didn't use the full quality
> radiosity that I did in the final image. Radiosity with small bright
> objects is ... twitchy. The only thing that you can really do is use as
> high radiosity settings as you can without driving your computer catatonic.

Yep, that's what I'm discovering. There's just no "quick and easy" trick.
Even test renders take hours.

> Have a look at the radiosity settings that I used in this scene and see if
> you can adapt them for your own, if that helps.

Thanks for posting it!

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message