An idea for an image I had, spent most of this week working on it, but 
not anywhere near done yet :)

Anyway, I've got a better version of the flower, but it crashes v3.7, 
and I don't want to tweak the brightness to fit 3.6.

Current plans:
- Make the wall seen outside more interesting (windows, fire escapes, etc)
- A few more details inside the room
- A more believable jar
- Something isn't working right with the wall.  This has been, by far, 
the most frustrating aspect of the image yet.

Things I have set up, but didn't want to wait for for this render:
- Higher quality light source
- Atmospheric media making the view seem "dusty"
- A slight focal_blur

Things I really need help on:
- The dirt.  PLEASE!

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dandelion.png' (179 KB)

Preview of image 'dandelion.png'

OK, here's the next draft.  Some obvious, some not so obvious improvements.

I still need help on a few things:

- The texture for the dirt in the jar.  This is just bugging me.
- I'm thinking of replacing the dandelion with a rose; thoughts, anyone?

- The bricks (and mortar) show the correct bumpiness on the window-side; 
but the other sides are completely smooth.  Here's my code for creating 
a brick:

// Window Function
#local wc = (Window_Start + Window_End)/2; // Window Center
#local wcx = wc.x;	#local wcy = wc.y;	#local wcz = wc.z;
#local ws = (Window_End - Window_Start)/2; // Window Size
#local wsx = ws.x;	#local wsy = ws.y;	#local wsz = ws.z;
#local wf = function { max( abs(x-wcx)/wsx, abs(y-wcy)/wsy, 
abs(z-wcz)/wsz)-1 }

// Plane {x, 1}
#local p1 = function { x-1 }
// Plane {-x, -5}
#local p2 = function { 5-x }

#macro Brick(loc, siz)
// Brick Box Function
#local lx = loc.x;	#local ly = loc.y;	#local lz = loc.z;
#local sx = siz.x/2;	#local sy = siz.y/2;	#local sz = siz.z/2;
#local bf = function {max( abs(x-lx)/sx, abs(y-ly)/sy, abs(z-lz)/sz)-1}

// The difference between Brick Box, Window, p1 and p2
#local Brick_Func = function { max( bf(x,y,z), -wf(x,y,z), -p1(x,y,z), 
-p2(x,y,z)) }

isosurface {
	function {
		Brick_Func(x,y,z)
		- f_noise3d(x,y,z)/64
		- f_noise3d(x*8,y*8,z*8)/256
		- f_noise3d(x*32,y*32,z*32)/1024
	}
	contained_by {Brick_Box(loc, siz+1)}
	threshold 0
	texture { Brick_Tex }
}
#end

As I said, the bumpiness shows correctly where the window cuts out of 
the bricks, but the other sides are completely smooth.  This is 
frustrating me extremely.

I've got a bunch of other stuff I want to do with this image, but the 
rest can wait for now.

Thanks for looking,
...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dandelion.png' (218 KB)

Preview of image 'dandelion.png'

"Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:43fcff1e@news.povray.org...
> OK, here's the next draft.  Some obvious, some not so obvious 
> improvements.

I missed this before now since it's png. Opened them to take a look this 
time.

> - The texture for the dirt in the jar.  This is just bugging me.
> - I'm thinking of replacing the dandelion with a rose; thoughts, anyone?

Your dirt has the old POV 'crand' appearance, so maybe it should be less 
uniform. Possibly a layering needed with less air in the lowest parts? 
That's what occurs to me when I think of dirt in a jar. Could be as simple 
as using a turbulent gradient y texture map.

> - The bricks (and mortar) show the correct bumpiness on the window-side;
> but the other sides are completely smooth.

Maybe changing the Brick_Func line to this?

Brick_Func(x,y,z)*(f_noise3d(x*0.02,y*0.02,z*0.02)/2)

That's just something I tried after putting you script together enough to 
render it, might not work okay. Then again, it could. I'm an isosurface 
expert by any means. Seemed to be something about the noise needing to be 
added directly to that rather than subtracting. Not sure why.

> I've got a bunch of other stuff I want to do with this image

You lost the double reflection in the window that the first image had. That 
really grabbed my attention because I think it adds to any realism you might 
be after.

Bob H

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> "Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
> news:43fcff1e@news.povray.org...
>> OK, here's the next draft.  Some obvious, some not so obvious 
>> improvements.
> 
> I missed this before now since it's png. Opened them to take a look this 
> time.

Sorry, I hadn't thought of that.  I'll put future postings in JPG.

>> - The texture for the dirt in the jar.  This is just bugging me.
> 
> Your dirt has the old POV 'crand' appearance, so maybe it should be less 
> uniform. Possibly a layering needed with less air in the lowest parts? 
> That's what occurs to me when I think of dirt in a jar. Could be as simple 
> as using a turbulent gradient y texture map.

Currently, I'm using a constant color with small scale bumps.  I'll try 
the color_map (bozo might work better than turbulent gradient, but I'll 
try both).

>> - The bricks (and mortar) show the correct bumpiness on the window-side;
>> but the other sides are completely smooth.
> 
> Maybe changing the Brick_Func line to this?
> 
> Brick_Func(x,y,z)*(f_noise3d(x*0.02,y*0.02,z*0.02)/2)

Hmm... now every side of the bricks is smooth.

If I can't get them working, then I'll just bite the bullet and fake it 
with patterned textures and normal maps.  I'd much prefer the isosurface 
version, though - I'm not that great with textures (as you can see).

>> I've got a bunch of other stuff I want to do with this image
> 
> You lost the double reflection in the window that the first image had. That 
> really grabbed my attention because I think it adds to any realism you might 
> be after.

That's interesting - technically, the double reflection is still there 
(it's caused by a reflection "inside" the window, as well as the 
reflection on the surface).  I can even see it if I look closely.  Must 
be something with the reflection values (I think I lowered them this 
time) or the lighting - I'll see if I can get that back.

(I *could* also increase the thickness of the window, so the double 
reflection is more obvious as it would be offset more from the main one 
- not technically accurate, but artistically useful anyway).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:43fde8f2$1@news.povray.org...
> Bob Hughes wrote:
>>> - The bricks (and mortar) show the correct bumpiness on the window-side;
>>> but the other sides are completely smooth.
>>
>> Maybe changing the Brick_Func line to this?
>>
>> Brick_Func(x,y,z)*(f_noise3d(x*0.02,y*0.02,z*0.02)/2)
>
> Hmm... now every side of the bricks is smooth.

Did you leave the other parts below that line in? When I got it to render 
something, window opening too, it was all a granular surface everywhere. I 
left all other parts alone except that line and just added the stuff it 
needed to get a render of the object. Wasn't showing a wall of bricks, 
though, just one large slab of a wall with the window cutout. Chances are we 
could be on different paths but I thought it would show you something with 
all sides unsmoothed.

Oh yeah, I was going to say something about the flower choice and missed my 
chance before. I kinda like the dandelion more than a rose simply because 
it's basically a weed so that seemed unique compared to using a more typical 
flower type. Only problem with it might be getting it to look detailed 
enough to keep from being just a yellow disk, although I was imagining 
details were there and might actually be but I wasn't trying to see any.

Bob H

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chambers wrote:
> As I said, the bumpiness shows correctly where the window cuts out of
> the bricks, but the other sides are completely smooth.  This is
> frustrating me extremely.
> 
	That's because there is no light inside: it's all lit by ambient
which gives a perfectly flat shading. I see two ways to change that:
 - Get rid of the ambient and add a shadowless light source at the
same place as the camera;
 - Or model roughly the whole room and use radiosity.

		Jerome
- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
*  mailto:jeb### [at] freefr   *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD/gBad0kWM4JG3k8RAuJIAJ0XRWTOmAnPQN26LAL+1EIm0wF+LgCguyak
7eSxuxZBHtN6PJl5CNgLBOg=
=1Qld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

> Chambers wrote:
>> As I said, the bumpiness shows correctly where the window cuts out of
>> the bricks, but the other sides are completely smooth.  This is
>> frustrating me extremely.
>>
> 	That's because there is no light inside: it's all lit by ambient
> which gives a perfectly flat shading. I see two ways to change that:
>  - Get rid of the ambient and add a shadowless light source at the
> same place as the camera;
>  - Or model roughly the whole room and use radiosity.

Heh - one step ahead of you, the version 2 already has an inside light 
source :)  So sadly, that's not the problem :(

Anyway, I've changed the scene composition to work around this problem, 
as you'll see in the next version.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> Oh yeah, I was going to say something about the flower choice and missed my 
> chance before. I kinda like the dandelion more than a rose simply because 
> it's basically a weed so that seemed unique compared to using a more typical 
> flower type.

That's really the original point of the picture, anyway - you have 
something that most people consider an ugly weed, put it in a 
constrictive, repressive environment, and have it reaching towards the 
sun and fresh air.  (BTW, another example of the same feeling: ever seen 
the movie Joe Versus the Volcano?  In the beginning, there's a close-up 
shot of a flower {might even have been a dandelion} growing in a crack 
in some pavement, with a horde of identical black shoes stepping all 
around it and walking past).

Hmm, air... maybe I should have the window be opened a bit?


> Only problem with it might be getting it to look detailed 
> enough to keep from being just a yellow disk, although I was imagining 
> details were there and might actually be but I wasn't trying to see any.
> 
> Bob H


Yes, there are some details, and I had meant to add more but the ones 
that are there don't show up at all.  I was doing the modelling on an 
800x600 detail of the flower, and when I transferred it in to the main 
scene, I realized a may as well have just left the disc.

Hmm, maybe some artificial color contrasts would *appear* good even if 
they aren't technically accurate... I think I'll play around with a 
radial pattern on it, and a small amount of filtered light as well...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message