 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I sent the message and nothing showed up, so I sent it again. I can only see
one message from OE now.... :op
Nekar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks very fine.
I would now, for the final touch, add some microscopic elements (plancton)
to the water in the background. Some sharper, some blurred. Different kinds.
And maybe the idea of a distant nearly not recognizable underwater surface.
Greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's one simple, but very nice render.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias wrote:
> Looks awesome! Some floating particles would make it look really
> convincing...
Thanks! I plan on adding some particles, but it's going to make the
render time higher than it would normally.... the translucent effect
isn't very lenient as far as other scene objects go. When I add more
(non-translucent) objects to the scene, the effect becomes diminished
unless I wrap everything in merge brackets. Very annoying.
> Hm, that should be tested sometime. I use Silo for modelling, that's a
> very cheap but awesome subdivision surface modeller. If subdividing
> directly in POV is better than loading a big mesh, I wouldn't mind. :-)
There is a version for POV 3.6. You should check it out.
> Probably just a simple pigment with a high specular, or what? Still
> quite a long render for just the glare. <>
<edit>
> Do you do it like I do? Render a specular pass, blur it using average,
> and layer it on top of another image? Looks good anyways. Any tricks
> involved that my description lacks? Always eager to learn! :-)
Close, I use the rendered scene as input for the effect. It is averaged.
Attached is the sample pattern for the effect. Q stands for quality. Q =
1 is the maximum, and uses about 236-237 samples, so there is some
improvement to be made, yet. I will soon be posting the glare effect
file to p.b.scene-files.
>> Comments always welcome....
>
> You got mine! ;-)
And it is appreciated :)
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lb_chart.png' (8 KB)
Preview of image 'lb_chart.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar wrote:
> How did you get the glare effect?
I made a scene-file which takes a pre-rendered image and adds the effect
to it. I posted the file to p.b.scene-files
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski wrote:
> It looks very fine.
>
> I would now, for the final touch, add some microscopic elements (plancton)
> to the water in the background. Some sharper, some blurred. Different kinds.
> And maybe the idea of a distant nearly not recognizable underwater surface.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sven
I will add particles, but will render it sometime.... later. I'll most
likely post it directly to my website.
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anthony D'Agostino wrote:
> That's one simple, but very nice render.
Thanks!
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com>
Newsgroups: povray.binaries.images
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: water bug (41kb)
> Close, I use the rendered scene as input for the effect. It is averaged.
> Attached is the sample pattern for the effect. Q stands for quality. Q =
> 1 is the maximum, and uses about 236-237 samples, so there is some
> improvement to be made, yet. I will soon be posting the glare effect
> file to p.b.scene-files.
Wouldn't it be more realistic combining a heavily focal blurred scene with
the original in almost the same way you did this?
/* Nekar Xenos */#local N=<-20,40,100>;#local K=<20,-40,100>;#local
R=seed(0);
blob{#while((K-N).x>0)#local X=N;#local N=N+<rand(R),rand(R),1>/3;#local N=(
vlength(N-K)<vlength(X-K)?N:2*X-N);sphere{<N.y,-N.x,N.z>,1,1 scale
.02}sphere{N
,1,1 scale.02}sphere{<-N.x-40,N.y,N.z>1,1
scale.01}sphere{<N.x+40,-N.y,N.z>1,1
scale.01 }#end pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission <2,4,5>*5}}hollow}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be more realistic combining a heavily focal blurred scene with
> the original in almost the same way you did this?
For the glare effect? Or to add particles?
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4527ed6c$1@news.povray.org...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more realistic combining a heavily focal blurred scene
>> with
>> the original in almost the same way you did this?
>
> For the glare effect? Or to add particles?
For the glare effect. Are you blrurring the scene and mixing the blurred and
unblurred images together to get that efect? If so, how about using focal
blurr instead, because in real life the amount of glare depends on how far
you are from the object. Take for instance a light globe: from close-up the
filament is visible, but from further away only the glare of the light can
be seen.
--
-Nekar Xenos
"The truth is out there"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
