Here is another test scene using area_lights in place of global 
illumination. This time I used an isosurface with a relatively high 
accuracy and low max_gradient. It wasn't too slow. Creature is composed 
of spheres placed along a spline and rotated using John Vansickle's 
Reorient Macro (now included with pov 3.5 :) ).

Q's, c's?

-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'wall_creature.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'wall_creature.jpg'

Oh yeah, source is in povray.scene.text-files for those who are 
interested :)

Samuel Benge wrote:

> Here is another test scene using area_lights in place of global 
> illumination. This time I used an isosurface with a relatively high 
> accuracy and low max_gradient. It wasn't too slow. Creature is composed 
> of spheres placed along a spline and rotated using John Vansickle's 
> Reorient Macro (now included with pov 3.5 :) ).
> 
> Q's, c's?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

Yet again, another nice image. The faked radiosity works well on the outer
surface but inside the holes it is more obvious that it is faked. I feel
that radiosity gives a much better definition of detail in shadowed areas,
although this would probably require quite high settings.

Kev

Post a reply to this message

The wall looks unrealistic... mainly, the sharp ridges. It needs some work
so that the viewer can better recognize it at first glance. Is it some sort
of cliff wall made of rock?

I think the lighting is realistic though.

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote in message
news:3d2f4a36$1@news.povray.org...
> The wall looks unrealistic... mainly, the sharp ridges. It needs some work
> so that the viewer can better recognize it at first glance. Is it some
sort
> of cliff wall made of rock?

Looks like some form of calcium or other mineral deposit to me.

Kev

Post a reply to this message

The technique is still in the making. The purpose is to overcome high 
render times. I cringe to think of how long it takes to render a scene 
that combines radiosity and isosurfaces.

Kevin Ellis wrote:

> Yet again, another nice image. The faked radiosity works well on the outer
> surface but inside the holes it is more obvious that it is faked. I feel
> that radiosity gives a much better definition of detail in shadowed areas,
> although this would probably require quite high settings.
> 
> Kev
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

I've seen lava walls that looked a lot like this. Gas bubbles had pushed 
some parts out, while leaving other parts vunerable to erosion.

Slime wrote:

> The wall looks unrealistic... mainly, the sharp ridges. It needs some work
> so that the viewer can better recognize it at first glance. Is it some sort
> of cliff wall made of rock?
> 
> I think the lighting is realistic though.
> 
>  - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

that is seriously creepy. I had to lift my feet off the floor to view
this image- don't want to be grabbed by the ankle...

yuck!

:o)

-peter
-- 
Modeling slave:
"Ballet pour ma fille."
http://www.applesnake.net

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d2f498c@news.povray.org>,
 "Kevin Ellis" <kev### [at] tiscalicouk> wrote:

> Yet again, another nice image. The faked radiosity works well on the outer
> surface but inside the holes it is more obvious that it is faked. I feel
> that radiosity gives a much better definition of detail in shadowed areas,
> although this would probably require quite high settings.

A light source at the camera position would help fill in those 
areas...no spot visible from the camera would be unlit. In this case, I 
think a black nothingness is desired, though...makes you wonder what the 
rest of the thing looks like, what else could be hiding in that shadow.

The border between the two does seem rather abrupt though...radiosity 
might help. ;-)

There seems to be a greenish tint and loss of definition to the surfaces 
pointing downward, the surface looks flat, without shading. I'd say a 
too high ambient was used if the black shadows didn't show the ambient 
was 0...maybe repositioning one of the lights would help.

Hmm...maybe some still water at the bottom (like in the shelter of a 
small harbor) and some weathered timbers wedged into the rocks (maybe 
using the IsoWood include), from some unfortunate ship that took shelter 
too close. Or a golf ball or piece of litter, whatever the scale of this 
thing is...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3d2f4a36$1@news.povray.org>, "Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> 
wrote:

> The wall looks unrealistic... mainly, the sharp ridges. It needs some work
> so that the viewer can better recognize it at first glance. Is it some sort
> of cliff wall made of rock?

I've seen rock like this, it isn't unrealistic at all, it looks somewhat 
volcanic, or eroded sedimentary stone. Most exposed rock I've seen 
around this area is sandstone which cleaves off and erodes very 
differently from that, but I have seen similar surfaces in pictures. I 
didn't have any trouble recognizing it as a vertical rock surface of 
some kind, though it needs something to give it a sense of scale.

Though a lot of things in nature look unnatural...leaves sometimes look 
like plastic, many things look unnaturally bright (tropical treefrogs or 
fish for example), and the sky outside my window looks downright fake 
(the clouds are glowing bright pink in a sky that is a weird shade of 
green shading to a bright blue above).

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message