Wow, someone who is able to do a reflective material and realistic lighting WITHOUT a raytracer. CONGRATULATIONS! SERIOUSLY! You are among the exceptions
Dont put Yafray down it creates much more realistic images than blender is capable of at the moment. Maybe in the future then blender will become more and more photorealistic, but in my opinion Environment Maps are the hardest things ever to get right, i have never managed to acheive a good result with them.
BTW @ner, your renders are sweet. Any chance that you will make a little tutorial or run us through the steps on how you did this? I have never used the Blender radiosity rendering for any of my renders but I understand the basics of the system.
Here are some of my core render setups that I use for all of my work.
Perhaps someone would write some comprehensive documentation on EnvMaps so that we can see them on more than just shiney spheres. EnvMaps are easy to apply to spheres (for me), but to use them effectivly on other surfaces is hard, IMO.
The lighting is really nice! I gotta try out the new radiosity
Not really, the positioning of the empty (or whatever) for the texture co-ordinates differs from shape to shape. For planes and spheres it’s relatively easy, but becomes more difficult to find a good location for the empty for differently shaped objects. It’s fine if you just want it to look ‘shiny’, which is a nice and fast solution for most purposes but if you want it looking more realistic/accurate, then the envmaps won’t cut it. It’s the subtleties that, even while you may not notice them on first glance, just cause the pic to look a bit ‘wrong’ or CG.
For example, looking at those spheres, the distance between the spheres looks much larger in the reflection than it actually is. If (hypothetically) those spheres were the size of billiard balls, the distance between them looks to be about 10mm or less, however in the reflection, they look more like 20~30~40mm apart. This is (I presume) because the envmap was most likely calculated from the centre point of the sphere, rather than the surface, which means that the distances between reflected items will seem relative to the center. However moving the envmap co-ords away from the center of the sphere will make it look even weirder, so it’s a catch-22.
That is actually wrong, a physically correct reflection would not have been calculated from the surface, but from the mirror point relative to the camera, which is far behind the sphere. So your logic is a bit inverse there!
Yeah you’re right about that :). What I mean though is that the reflection seems like it’s coming off the centre of the object, when it should be coming off the surface.