 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi everybody!
Here's an attempt at greebling with a modified crackle pattern. It's
meant to be viewed cross-eyed to bring out the depth. I could have used
higher focal-blur settings if I had the time :cD
The scene consists of a single height field, which was declared and
copied several times. One 2x2 area_light was used. The faked indirect
illumination is a proximity pattern based on the final object.
Total rendering time: about 20 minutes. Rendered completely in POV-Ray
3.6 (except for my signature, which was added with the Gimp).
Questions, comments and CC are appreciated as always!
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'alien_architecture.jpg' (99 KB)
Preview of image 'alien_architecture.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
P.S. It appears the jpeg compression really ate this one up. Oh well,
gotta go take care of some errands....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge wrote:
I knew that this would be easy in POV (guessing you spotted the recent
greeble thread in p.b.i). Not saying that to take away anything from
your as usual nice-looking render. Would be interested to see this with
another, smaller texture representing tiny details. This looks like
large details to me.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice - especially in 3D.
-Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H. R. Giger himself would be impressed!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> I knew that this would be easy in POV (guessing you spotted the recent
> greeble thread in p.b.i).
Don't you mean p.o-t?
> Not saying that to take away anything from
> your as usual nice-looking render.
Can't take away what it never had :) Seriously though, this was rather
hastily posted. I hope to render something more interesting later...
> Would be interested to see this with
> another, smaller texture representing tiny details. This looks like
> large details to me.
>
> -Shay
That's the next step (one of the next steps, anyway). The problem is
balancing large-scale details with the miniscule. I've got a few ideas
rattling around upstairs for doing that...
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
> Very nice - especially in 3D.
>
> -Chris
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Blandston wrote:
> H. R. Giger himself would be impressed!
Thanks! Now I need to steer the style towards something more 'original' :)
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When do we get a real 3d screen ?? :-)
It's funny how the depth information in your image is somehow reversed, when
I look at it 2d versus 3d.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
beauty
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
