 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some recent events led me to this.
We all have feelings which we though to have packed
away. But then something happens, and oops, there
they are, not the same as before, since they're from the
past and you've learned a lot since then...
Still, something may break.
Comments and suggestions appreciated, though
I'm not too sure if I want to change anything about
it.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30.06.2003
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'resurface.jpg' (154 KB)
Preview of image 'resurface.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, here's some little background info:
tracing took 5h54m49s
Photons and Radiosity have been calculated
and saved in former steps, each taking just
a few minutes.
Focal-Blur achieved with following setup:
aperture .25 blur_samples 256
confidence .95 variance 1/512
This still led to artifacts on the foremost edge of the
standing box, which I had to post-process away. The
only other workaround I see for sharp edges with
focal blur is to render that section again, but with settings
which will just madly shoot all samples...
Photons have been shot with an rgb 2 lightsource, but
the image is rendered with rgb 1 lightsource, and the
glass uses .5 to 1 variable reflection in the shooting
phase, as opposed to 0 to 1 in the final trace. Why? Look
at the nice light-sparks everywhere. I kinda like how they
"spread" some chaos while light is being projected onto
the shards for closer "inspection" (thats just how you feel
when you try to ponder about something and just find
more and more confusion).
Glass-Shards are individual meshes, generated by a simple
algorithm. Boxes are made of boxes and prisms. The
ground-plane was taken from "2Lonely".
All in all, final rendering time exceeded scripting time of this image.
(Hm, sure seems that I've got at least a little experience, eh? :-)
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim### [at] gmx de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3f0a711d@news.povray.org...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 30.06.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, if anyone cares, I've uploaded the final image to
my homepage. 32 hours rendering time vs 4 (at most)
hours modelling is a nice ratio.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dark... isn't it ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Depends on screen-gamma, doesn't it?
This issue has been covered many times in the past.
Are you on a Mac?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Dark... isn't it ?
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 01.07.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No... I haven't enough money for that ! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hm. Well, I don't know. I've known that some
images might appear VERY dark, but since I was
never one of those complaining about that, I
assumed the pictures I'd create would be bright
enough. And this one isn't THAT dark...
Or have I misunderstood you, and you didn't mean
the image as a file, but the image in its sense being
dark?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> No... I haven't enough money for that ! ;-)
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.495 / Virus Database: 294 - Release Date: 01.07.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
