10
\$\begingroup\$

Is there some kind of "special" lighting in this scene? I notice that the sun seems to "pop".

Trine

\$\endgroup\$
  • 14
    \$\begingroup\$ Ugh. Why do people think this looks good? :( \$\endgroup\$ – Jon Purdy Sep 23 '11 at 22:42
  • 10
    \$\begingroup\$ Needs more brown. \$\endgroup\$ – Patrick Hughes Sep 23 '11 at 23:02
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonPurdy because to some of us it does. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 24 '11 at 0:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs: I just think blurring the specular channel on everything is a bit excessive. It's like a lens flare: it's a simulation of the side-effects of an imperfect lens. Why would you do that? \$\endgroup\$ – Jon Purdy Sep 24 '11 at 4:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs: That's fair. I just find it a particularly overused tool. Things have a tendency of being overused when they become easy to use, then tone down over time (consider the early internet). I think that's what's happening with bloom. \$\endgroup\$ – Jon Purdy Sep 24 '11 at 4:50
21
\$\begingroup\$

It uses a bloom shader. That's a post-processing effect that makes bright areas of the rendering appear to glow.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ +1, however, calling it a bloom filter is potentially misleading as this effect has nothing to do with 'bloom filters' (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter). Probably better to just call it a bloom effect. \$\endgroup\$ – Kylotan Sep 23 '11 at 18:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ good point, edited. \$\endgroup\$ – jhocking Sep 23 '11 at 18:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DantheMan If you really want to thank him, mark this as the answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Nicol Bolas Sep 24 '11 at 21:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NicolBolas, I know. \$\endgroup\$ – Daniel Pendergast Sep 25 '11 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.