Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
DreadCthulhu wrote:Am I the only one who isn't seeing an image or a link to an image?
DreadCthulhu wrote:Am I the only one who isn't seeing an image or a link to an image?
DreadCthulhu wrote:Am I the only one who isn't seeing an image or a link to an image?
[quote="ssidbroadcast"]Edit: Bah. The image in question:
[img]http://www.shackpics.com/files/glass_77smsqlkgm1nyta8p3q8.jpg[/img][/quote]
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Heiwashin wrote:Seconded, the shadows are rather blobby as well. Something lit from above with such high intensity should produce sharper shadows.The most solid point i have is parts of the shadows clearly break into 3,4 or 5 parts, whoever did it probably used a sample rate of maybe 7 on an area light and it caused that unwanted effect.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Heiwashin wrote:Actually yours is significantly higher quality jobo. I wouldn't be surprised if theirs was rendered with very basic ray tracing. The reflections don't have any special features from normal reflective mapping and the shadows are horrible quality, well below any 3rd party lighting.
ssidbroadcast wrote:Heiwashin wrote:Actually yours is significantly higher quality jobo. I wouldn't be surprised if theirs was rendered with very basic ray tracing. The reflections don't have any special features from normal reflective mapping and the shadows are horrible quality, well below any 3rd party lighting.
Except I can see the polygon silhouette of those spheres which is the dead giveaway.
mortifiedPenguin wrote:Although, too be honest, the DOF can be lenghened with a smaller aperture, so that by itself doesnt really say anything. But the flattening effect just isnt there. The relative size of the tooth farther away compared to the closer one gives that away.Heiwashin wrote:It could be suggested that the camera is just pretty far away from the scene, however, to produce an image with no trace of the camera in any reflections, we would need a pretty long lens. Which in turn would flatten the image and give it almost no depth of field.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Aphasia wrote:My point was that there shouldn't be any depth of field if it was a long lens at this sort of distance , which it obviously isn't one due to the lack of foreshortening. Perhaps I should clarify my statement. To make a camera sufficiently small that it disappears from a reflection would require a really long lens (because the camera is really far away). Such a lens would create the flattening effect as you noted, but would also have a very long depth of field; a DOF far longer than the distance from the front of the scene to the back of the scene. What I was attempting to convey was that the picture has depth of field, meaning that it couldn't possibly be such a lens even if there was the flattening effect.Although, too be honest, the DOF can be lenghened with a smaller aperture, so that by itself doesnt really say anything. But the flattening effect just isnt there. The relative size of the tooth farther away compared to the closer one gives that away.