| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| Digital Art / 3-Dimensional Art / Scenes / Landscapes | ©2010-2013 ~phresnel |
)
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
I hate myself for doing that, but I recently "tested" a friend to compare a photograph I've taken with a similar setting (taken a few 10 minutes before [link]) with a photo-print of this image, and she did not realise that one of those were a rendering with picogen. The photo-quality was not too good (bad supermarket printer), but of course this was a great compliment to me as a graphics programmer
Hmm, I guess it's difficult to see the difference if one's not familiar with digital landscape generation -- and then there is the difference the print-out as well.
I think your first point could be mostly solved by finally implementing tone mappers. The sky implementation I use is basically a 1-to-1 port of the original Preetham/Shirley/Smits-Utah-Sky. Of course I might have made errors, but I think in this case it is the end of the rendering pipeline that "fails" .
About aperture diffraction: Would you have a good example for it? Indeed photographic effects/fallacies et al. are very important to me for the future of picogen. Any hint is heplful
here's a link to a nice discussion of aperture diffraction [link]
So it is basically, in gfxcoder's slang, lens flares?