|
|
On 11/03/2011 4:39 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/11/2011 10:12 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> What I think we need to do is scale both the subsurface values and the
>> texture, independently but related. (If that makes sense)
>
> agreed ... I'm doing a beauty run on the stanford dragon now, here's
> what I have for the material:
>
I await in anticipation.
> object { stanford_dragon
> material {
> texture {
> T_Stone18
> scale 0.035
> finish {
> subsurface {translucency<0.05,1,1>*0.5}
> reflection { SeaGreen*0.001 }
> }
> }
> interior {ior 1.62}
> }
>
Hmm! I might try using coloured reflection sometime. 0.001 seems quite
subtle. :-D
> I copied T_Stone18 into my scene file and made a couple of mods (ambient
> to 0 and dialed down diffuse a touch) in the bottom layer texture, then
> changed phong to specular/roughness on the outer layer.
>
T_Stone18 is quite dark. I can't wait to see it.
> To setup the sslt I used a plain white texture instead of T_Stone18
> while I dialed in the sslt (seems to help with visualizing the effect).
Sounds like a good idea.
> That was interesting because my 1st take on mm_per_unit was that it
> would be smaller than default because of the size of the model at scale
> 1. When smaller didn't seem to be working I tried default without much
> luck either, so I increased to 1000 then 2540, but still had to wildly
> scale the translucency color. Finally I decided to try a couple of half
> step itterations between something I considered to be more reasonable
> (100 - 10) and found the sweet spot. The value I arrived at was so close
> to the subsurface scene file values, I opted to use mm_per_unit 40 and
> quickly was able to tune the translucency setting to what's shown above.
>
"Suck it and see" technique. :-D
>> PS I notice that you forgot to put your subsurface values in the RC3
>> format :-P
>
> ha-ha ... bleeding edge :-P
I suppose that you deserve something for all your hard work on the docs.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|