Well this is my first post to the newsgroup... I think.  I may have
posted something back in college, but I can't recall.  In any case, this
was cranked out in about 30 minutes in Moray (which is kinda saying
something - for me) and rendered in MegaPov 0.7.

I seem to have the radiosity somewhat correct on the first try, with the
entire "sky" sphere being ambient of 1.

I dunno.  Comments?  Criticism?  Am I just too far behind?

-Lawrence

P.S.  I know I used too few blur samples, but I wanted to post this
before I did anything else.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'egg1.jpg' (47 KB)

Preview of image 'egg1.jpg'

Not too bad. Has a sense of distinct realism, what with
radiosity and all. But either some sort of light-source +
highlights on the spheres or a bright sphere as sun (using
pure radiosity illumination) + exponential reflection
would add some more.

Just some "not newbie" thoughts. ;-)

Lawrence Winstead wrote:

> Well this is my first post to the newsgroup... I think.  I may have
> posted something back in college, but I can't recall.  In any case, this
> was cranked out in about 30 minutes in Moray (which is kinda saying
> something - for me) and rendered in MegaPov 0.7.
>
> I seem to have the radiosity somewhat correct on the first try, with the
> entire "sky" sphere being ambient of 1.
>
> I dunno.  Comments?  Criticism?  Am I just too far behind?
>
> -Lawrence
>
> P.S.  I know I used too few blur samples, but I wanted to post this
> before I did anything else.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

you wanted REFLECTING spheres not REFRACTING ones.

:P


--
Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

Hey, thanks for the input.  I'm not getting the "exponential reflection"
though.  What exactly do you mean by that?

As for adding a pure rad sun, I'm all for that.

Thanks again!
-Law

Tim Nikias wrote:

> Not too bad. Has a sense of distinct realism, what with
> radiosity and all. But either some sort of light-source +
> highlights on the spheres or a bright sphere as sun (using
> pure radiosity illumination) + exponential reflection
> would add some more.
>
> Just some "not newbie" thoughts. ;-)
>
> Lawrence Winstead wrote:
>
> > Well this is my first post to the newsgroup... I think.  I may have
> > posted something back in college, but I can't recall.  In any case, this
> > was cranked out in about 30 minutes in Moray (which is kinda saying
> > something - for me) and rendered in MegaPov 0.7.
> >
> > I seem to have the radiosity somewhat correct on the first try, with the
> > entire "sky" sphere being ambient of 1.
> >
> > I dunno.  Comments?  Criticism?  Am I just too far behind?
> >
> > -Lawrence
> >
> > P.S.  I know I used too few blur samples, but I wanted to post this
> > before I did anything else.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

You think so?  I really dig glass spheres... there's just something
beautiful about them...  But as they say, variety is the spice of
life...

-Law

"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:

> you wanted REFLECTING spheres not REFRACTING ones.
>
> :P
>
> --
> Rick
>
> Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
> POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
> TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
>
> PGP Public Key
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

In article <3CD33CB8.FB449EE9@duratechindustries.net>, 
flu### [at] duratechindustriesnet says...
> You think so?  I really dig glass spheres... there's just something
> beautiful about them...  But as they say, variety is the spice of
> life...
> 
> -Law
> 
> "Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> 
> > you wanted REFLECTING spheres not REFRACTING ones.
> >
> > :P
> >
> > --
> > Rick

I think Rick was just having a humorous dig.  Note one tongue-poke 
emoticon!


over a chequerboard plane.  You got the chequerboard, but...

You used transparent/refracting spheres and focal blur.  These are much 
more advanced concepts, so you failed the "newbie test".  What's more, 
you even used an advanced object such as an architectural staircase, 
combined with natural object placement, ie. the resting spheres.  ... and 
that curly thing?!?

Producing such good work as this just will not do if you want to be 
called a "newbie".  Go back and start again!  :-p  :-)

Cheers,
    Brian.
--

Post a reply to this message

POV-Ray 3.5 (now running with Release Candidates)
has advanced variable reflection options. Exponentiation
is one of them. It basically reflects brighter object
better than darker ones. In my Gallery, there is one
image of a golden cube. The sphere it reflects has
an rgb of 8, the exponential reflection of .6. Thus,
the bright sphere is reflected pretty well, though
the surrounding room is not (too dark).
Radiosity images have the problem of calculating
specular highlighting, so exponential reflection,
which is actually the most realistic specular highlighting
I know of, is the best way to go in such a case. But
do note that in a radiosity based image, objects
with high rgb/ambient become lightsources...

Flux wrote:

> Hey, thanks for the input.  I'm not getting the "exponential reflection"
> though.  What exactly do you mean by that?
>
> As for adding a pure rad sun, I'm all for that.
>
> Thanks again!
> -Law
>
> Tim Nikias wrote:
>
> > Not too bad. Has a sense of distinct realism, what with
> > radiosity and all. But either some sort of light-source +
> > highlights on the spheres or a bright sphere as sun (using
> > pure radiosity illumination) + exponential reflection
> > would add some more.
> >
> > Just some "not newbie" thoughts. ;-)
> >
> > Lawrence Winstead wrote:
> >
> > > Well this is my first post to the newsgroup... I think.  I may have
> > > posted something back in college, but I can't recall.  In any case, this
> > > was cranked out in about 30 minutes in Moray (which is kinda saying
> > > something - for me) and rendered in MegaPov 0.7.
> > >
> > > I seem to have the radiosity somewhat correct on the first try, with the
> > > entire "sky" sphere being ambient of 1.
> > >
> > > I dunno.  Comments?  Criticism?  Am I just too far behind?
> > >
> > > -Lawrence
> > >
> > > P.S.  I know I used too few blur samples, but I wanted to post this
> > > before I did anything else.
> > >
> > >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >  [Image]
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Beautiful image. Just something to consider: that much focal blur makes the
scene look really small, as ig the objects are miniatures from a doll house.
But maybe that was your intention.

/ Martin

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 May 2002 16:25:08 -0500, Lawrence Winstead wrote:
 
> Well this is my first post to the newsgroup... I think.  I may have
> posted something back in college, but I can't recall.  In any case, this
> was cranked out in about 30 minutes in Moray (which is kinda saying
> something - for me) and rendered in MegaPov 0.7.

Hi Lawrence, welcome aboard.  This is a really nicely balanced first image. 
 
> I seem to have the radiosity somewhat correct on the first try, with the
> entire "sky" sphere being ambient of 1.
> 
> I dunno.  Comments?  Criticism?  Am I just too far behind?

Nobody is ever too far behind, and nobody is way ahead of the rest, though
some people chose a subject/area and specialise in that area.  I've been
using POV for five years and have never got focal blur to work, so you're
ahead of me on that already:-)

Keep up the good work. 

-- 
#local i=.1;#local I=(i/i)/i;#local l=(i+i)/i;#local ll=(I/i)/l;box{<-ll,
-((I/I)+l),-ll><ll,-l,ll>pigment{checker scale l}finish{ambient((I/l)/I)+
(l/I)}}sphere{<i-i,l-l,(I/l)>l/l pigment{rgb((I/l)/I)}finish{reflection((
I/l)/I)-(l/I)specular(I/l)/I}}light_source{<I-l,I+I,(I-l)/l>l/l} // Steve

Post a reply to this message

So, ah .. what *is* that swirly thing?

-- 
Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/

Post a reply to this message