They clearly understand they are to leave the windows alone and are very respectful of the area and never touch that “zone”. When they first put their horns by the windows to check them over, I told them gentle and to leave it. They’ve removed all the wood covers from the electric outlets, but don’t touch the windows because I told them not to. And they could remove it if they wanted to. The Randalls have never bothered the windows much, even prior to installing the protective wood. We put wooden pieces over the window that’s within their immediate reach. You can see (in the picture below) the bottom half of the window. The glass is tempered glass so it just shatters if broken ~ thankfully hasn’t happened yet. They slide up so just the screen is reachable to the cows when they are open in the barn. (It’s from the chicken coop built this fall.) We have the same windows in the coops that we have in the barn but a bigger size in the barn. but the above picture hopefully will give you an idea. We’ve had major sales based on pure AO images, so… Doesn’t always have to be ultra realistic to get the job done.I don’t have a full window picture of the barn windows on my phone. Guess it depends a bit what kind of business we’re in. Of course, you can choose to do things realistically. I.e, I might use translucency for curtains because you pretty much have to, then add a fake support area in front of the curtains to provide much cleaner direct light rather than the indirect light translucency provides. Only use them when you really have to, and try avoiding having to rely on them for actual lighting. This would be far more convenient to setup for typical emissive planes, if we had camera visible lamps and area lights with barn doors (or snoot/grid etc). Only use it when it simply can’t be done anyway else, and even then try to optimize/fake it. My advice is to stay as far away from emissive geometry as possible. This becomes more evident like in my case above, using tiny holes of light and tons and tons of them, compared to if you have a simple scene with a couple of decently sized emission planes. The camera one you need to keep under control anyway, to avoid step aliasing at high powers. Leaving the rest (camera, glossy, transmissive visibility) for the emissive panel. The key thing is however that the emissive panel image rendered much faster and needed only around 1/4 the number of samples to get a comparable level of noise (600 vs 150).Įven faster if you use an area light in front of it for diffuse only (and volume if applicable?), perhaps with a directionality control. It would also simplify your scene geometry as you wouldn’t need to add or model lights behind the panels. Of course this was before we had denoising, so the problem isn’t as bad these days, but every little helps. The key thing is however that the emissive panel image rendered much faster and needed only around 1/4 the number of samples to get a comparable level of noise (600 vs 150). The scene lighting is almost identical and could be made even more accurate in the second image with a suitable gradient texture to simulate the slight falloff in the corners of the translucent panel (this was a quick and dirty test - so I didn’t bother). In the other, the panel itself is emissive. The first image has a light source behind a translucent panel. I made this test for another thread a few years back. Trying to light a scene by placing actual lights behind a transparent or translucent object is asking for trouble. The easiest way to simulate the kind of lit ceiling effect in the photo a few posts above is to simply make the panels themselves emissive.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |