| |
In lugnet.cad.ray, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I'm not much of a POV expert, but it looks to me like Jeroen used a single
> light source (I only see one shadow per model). I'd guess the light
> source is very far away (to simulate sunlight) because all the shadows
> cast proportionate lengths.
I am considering using parallel instead of a light source that's very far
away...
I don't think Jeroen used "parallel" for his source(s) because the shadow angles
are steeper in the foreground. (this will be less pronounced with light sources
farther away but to completely eliminate it you'd have to use parallel
lights...)
Since the camera is orthographic it sort of does make sense to use parallel
>
> To soften the shadows I'd think you would want to increase ambient and
> diminish diffuse. The affect of diffuse depends on the angle of the light
> hitting the surface, ambient is not. If you have control over ambient light
> color I'd guess you want it white.
I think the ambient light color is the color of the surface, which in this case
is white already. I am confused about what diffuse does, I guess... I thought it
was a way to kill reflections (and reflection 0 is another)... with just a
default surface I was getting a lot of reflections of the image elements which I
don't want. (one model reflecting off another is fine but I want the background
to be completely matte)
>
> I'd practice on the lighting/background on a small model until you get what
> you want but you're very smart, so you probably are already doing that. It
> might also be faster to render each model separately, and then composite them
> together into your final image.
I don't think I want to composite, it seems likely to be error prone. As well as
a lot of work :)
For my tests, to improve speed, I am using most of the model removed but enough
remains that I can check things like shadow angles and lighting amounts. It
renders fast enough for me I guess. (Facebooking in another window passes the
time)
Once I get the final settings right I am going to render it on a machine I can
just leave running all week while I'm away.
Note: ultimately I would actually like my shadows to be slightly fuzzy, not
sharp edged, so I am guessing maybe I should be using an area light placed a
very long way away. And I guess to get the shadows to be light I should place
some low intensity shadowless lights at other positions?
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I think the ambient light color is the color of the surface, which in
> this case is white already. I am confused about what diffuse does,
If I understand it correctly, 'ambient' is what you see if all lights are
off. I usually turn this down very low (zero). 'Diffuse' is reflected light
from
other surfaces, you'd want quite a lot of that.
> with just a default surface I was getting a lot of reflections
Yes, I think the default 'reflection' value is too high in many cases.
> Note: ultimately I would actually like my shadows to be slightly
> fuzzy, not sharp edged, so I am guessing maybe I should be using an
> area light placed a very long way away.
I'm still using the old POVRay 3.5 where the 'experimental radiosity' is
*very*
usable for getting life like renderings (at the cost of loooong rendering
times). I belive newer versions use other means to achieve the same thing
('media'?).
I'm still very proud of this render:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/anders-isak/IdeaBookInspiration/playtable002.jpg
The general settings for that render is:
#declare AMB = 0;
#declare DIF = 0.8;
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1.2
ambient_light 0
max_trace_level 25
adc_bailout 1/150
radiosity {
pretrace_start 0.08
pretrace_end 0.01
count 300
error_bound 0.1
recursion_limit 1
}
}
and *no* light sources except for the sky sphere
sky_sphere {
pigment {
gradient -y //weird sky vector...
color_map {
[0.5 rgb 1.25]
[1 rgb <.5,.7,1>*1.1]
}
}
}
(Just let me know if you want the full POV source for it)
> And I guess to get the shadows to be light I should place some low
> intensity shadowless
> lights at other positions?
Straight above (but far off) would be a candidate for this. And as said
above, with 'radiosity' no lights at all are needed.
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.ray, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> (Just let me know if you want the full POV source for it)
Hi Anders! I sent a note requesting it to the address shown in your post, is it
still correct? Mine is, so you can use that one to send it. I really like the
way that image looks (as well as the next one in the Brickshelf gallery) so
would be pleased to get the source for both.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.ray, Anders Isaksson wrote:
>
> > (Just let me know if you want the full POV source for it)
>
> Hi Anders! I sent a note requesting it to the address shown in your
> post, is it still correct? Mine is, so you can use that one to send
> it. I really like the way that image looks (as well as the next one
> in the Brickshelf gallery) so would be pleased to get the source for
> both.
Received and replied with a zip of the .pov file and accompanying images.
The settings for the brighter render is probably in the out-commented light
settings in the .pov file (and without radiosity) - I don't know for sure, I
fiddled so much back and forth to find good lighting, and then I found
radiosity...
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
|
