 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
not sure what's causing this ...
image on the left has area light but commented out the sslt portion of
the material, on the right, same settings but with the sslt enabled.
btw: base texture is a uv mapped image
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'test.png' (100 KB)
Preview of image 'test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/03/2012 3:26 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> not sure what's causing this ...
>
> image on the left has area light but commented out the sslt portion of
> the material, on the right, same settings but with the sslt enabled.
>
> btw: base texture is a uv mapped image
The image, in the link below, of the lady with a dislocated thumb is u-v
mapped and uses area lights. If that helps (possibly hinders).
http://i.imgur.com/WAcGL.jpg
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/04/2012 02:06 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 3:26 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> not sure what's causing this ...
>>
>> image on the left has area light but commented out the sslt portion of
>> the material, on the right, same settings but with the sslt enabled.
>>
>> btw: base texture is a uv mapped image
>
> The image, in the link below, of the lady with a dislocated thumb is u-v
> mapped and uses area lights. If that helps (possibly hinders).
OK then ... I suppose it means that it's something I'm doing and NOT an
anomaly. LOL ... back to the drawing board. Maybe it's the backside
diffuse I'm using, at any rate thanks for helping eliminate one of the
possibilities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/03/2012 7:32 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> OK then ... I suppose it means that it's something I'm doing and NOT an
> anomaly. LOL ... back to the drawing board. Maybe it's the backside
> diffuse I'm using, at any rate thanks for helping eliminate one of the
> possibilities.
It was a very small area light, 4x4.
I'll post another test later, when it is finished, where I had to change
the samples from 100 to 1000 when changing between RC3 to RC4.
BTW have you tried translucency = <0,0,0> end or 0.0001?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/04/2012 02:56 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 7:32 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> OK then ... I suppose it means that it's something I'm doing and NOT an
>> anomaly. LOL ... back to the drawing board. Maybe it's the backside
>> diffuse I'm using, at any rate thanks for helping eliminate one of the
>> possibilities.
>
> It was a very small area light, 4x4.
> I'll post another test later, when it is finished, where I had to change
> the samples from 100 to 1000 when changing between RC3 to RC4.
>
> BTW have you tried translucency = <0,0,0> end or 0.0001?
>
nope ... interesting idea. i've had better luck going in the other
direction (larger values), but hey i'm still poking at this, so all
ideas are good ones at this point ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/03/2012 9:18 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>> BTW have you tried translucency = <0,0,0> end or 0.0001?
>>
> nope ... interesting idea. i've had better luck going in the other
> direction (larger values), but hey i'm still poking at this, so all
> ideas are good ones at this point ;-)
Not a good idea but interesting in a way.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
