 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is the POV version (very approximated) of a Lightflow demo image.
Rendering time was 2h 55m (AA method 2, max_trace_level 15).
I could post the original for comparison (the glass is a bit too dark here).
--
Jonathan.
Home: http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'corn.jpg' (51 KB)
Preview of image 'corn.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is the Lightflow version. The glass looks better but the box itself
looks badly illuminated IMO.
The caustics are completely different here.
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cornlight.jpg' (51 KB)
Preview of image 'cornlight.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The caustics are completely different here.
The shape of the glass object is a bit different, too. That's why. Maybe a
different IOR also.
In your image, if you look in the sphere's reflection, you can see lots of
radiosity artifacts behind the area that the camera sees.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Question:-):
You didn't say if that's photons or caustics, and if photons I suppose none
were used for reflection of the sphere and floor both. Maybe that could
explain a difference about the ceiling. And although it is radiosity used
there I'd guess you also had to use a light_source too, or not?
--
text{ttf"timrom""bob h"0,0pigment{rgb 7}translate 7*z}
"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3c25076e@news.povray.org...
> This is the POV version (very approximated) of a Lightflow demo image.
> Rendering time was 2h 55m (AA method 2, max_trace_level 15).
> I could post the original for comparison (the glass is a bit too dark
here).
>
> --
> Jonathan.
>
> Home: http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The POV version is much better imho.
cu!
--
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
"I'm not flying in that! I want my giggle back!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it JRG who wrote:
>This is the Lightflow version. The glass looks better but the box itself
>looks badly illuminated IMO.
>The caustics are completely different here.
There's something strange about the Lightflow floor. It seems to produce
an elliptical reflection of the sphere. I can imagine a gently curved
shape that would do that, but the reflections of the edges of the walls
would be curved.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> > The caustics are completely different here.
>
> The shape of the glass object is a bit different, too. That's why. Maybe a
> different IOR also.
No, the IOR is the same. As far as the glass goes, just a bit different
frequency shouldn't cause that difference IMO. That being said, don't you
find Lightflow's caustics a bit approximative?
> In your image, if you look in the sphere's reflection, you can see lots of
> radiosity artifacts behind the area that the camera sees.
Funnily there shouldn't be any radiosity at all ;)
I used precalculated radiosity data from a *dummy* scene without
reflections. Next time I will render the save_file scene with reflections
turned on to avoid the problem.
Besides, the Lightflow version consists of a real box. POV's does not. The
reason is that in Lightflow _no_image_ objects (the wall which you can see
reflected but that theoretically should be visible just in front of the
camera) are taken into account during radiosity calculations. In POV they're
not, so I couldn't use that trick (and placing the camera inside the box
would cause ugly distortions to the spheres due to the wide angle needed).
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bob h wrote:
> Question:-):
> You didn't say if that's photons or caustics,
Photons, of course.
>and if photons I suppose none
> were used for reflection of the sphere and floor both.
Right.
>Maybe that could
> explain a difference about the ceiling.
Hmm, maybe. Not only. Maybe the settings used were not so *extreme*, after
all that scene, IIRC, took something like 20 minutes to render...
>And although it is radiosity used
> there I'd guess you also had to use a light_source too, or not?
Yes.
It's simply a slightly modified version of Kari's cornell box.
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The caustics are completely different here.
The Lightflow version lacks reflective caustics too...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's another version.
--
Jonathan.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cornbin.jpg' (50 KB)
Preview of image 'cornbin.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
