Rod wrote:
I would get a different car
![laff out loud :lol](./images/smilies/lol.gif)
Why you gotta break on my ride man? I bought new in '05, it's 100% paid for and the only thing I've put into it are brakes and preventive maintenance. I'd buy another Kia in a heartbeat. And it's the most comfortable thing to ride in 12 straight hours. Only thing is it is under powered at 200hp for a curb weight of 4,021.
U hurt my feelings, the few that I have left that my wife hasn't ruined yet.
PhotoComix wrote:
EDIT
@Mahvin
if you fixed i am curious to see your result
i can't find the right words to explain why the reflection used in the tut is totally wrong,
it is the prospective, supposing that the car stand on a mirror from the observer POW the mirrored image would be quite different and would show a bit of the bottom of the car
The author masked well the error but the error remain...just close the eyes and think to that car with that prospective standing on a mirror...could you imagine the right reflection ?
(Not hard to imagine but hard to do :
would be needed a image of the same car but taken from a different POW for the reflection
To make easier you may chose a image with a frontal or a profile of the car, in that case may be just sufficient use the prospective tool on the reflection to make it realistic
And I understand were you're coming from as well.
mahvin wrote:
PC: Unless you have an image actually showing the underside of the car, that image process would be impossible to obtain (of course you can paint/paste one onto the image). This is just a simple reflection fade that still looks stunning (do you not agree?).
Now, if I were a digital media graphic artist working for the car manufacturer, then I would have access to every side of the vehicle (including under it) and probably just shoot a series of images using a camera.
Roger that!