 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0023.png' (732 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0023.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 00:26, schrieb clipka:
> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
Just for comparison: Same scene, just with the SSLT turned off. ~7 minutes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 00:38, schrieb clipka:
> Am 06.03.2012 00:26, schrieb clipka:
>> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
>> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
>
> Just for comparison: Same scene, just with the SSLT turned off. ~7 minutes.
... and I /did/ intend to attach the render output.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0035.png' (601 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0035.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/03/2012 11:26 PM, clipka wrote:
> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
Well that showed me. ;-)
What settings did you use?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 08:58, schrieb Stephen:
> On 05/03/2012 11:26 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
>> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
>
> Well that showed me. ;-)
That was my initial intention... until I found out that she's a real
beauty indeed, and worth spending some time with her on my own accord :-)
> What settings did you use?
#declare MtMarble = material {
texture {
pigment {
marble
warp { turbulence 1.0 }
color_map {
[0.0 color rgb <0.5,0.7,0.5>]
[1.0 color rgb <0.5,1.0,0.5>]
}
}
finish {
diffuse albedo 0.7
subsurface { translucency <0.5,0.2,0.2> }
reflection { 0.2 fresnel }
specular albedo 0.2 roughness 0.01
conserve_energy
}
scale 10 / MM_PER_UNIT
}
interior { ior 1.5 }
}
(with Lucy being about 1.5 units in height, and MM_PER_UNIT being set to
100, so that she's roughly 150 mm)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just spent a night with her. Oh boy, what a lady - it was totally worth
the 8 hours!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 1024.png' (409 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 1024.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>clipka on date 06/03/2012 0.26 wrote:
> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
I like this one better than the (however beautiful) icy one.
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
cool!
although she doesn't seem completely thawed yet ;)
Is the bright pixel noise in dark areas an SSLT artefact?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 19:19, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> Is the bright pixel noise in dark areas an SSLT artefact?
Yup. I'm already running another render with higher-quality settings
(and desktop-size resolution).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I'm already running another render with higher-quality settings
> (and desktop-size resolution).
Fantastic!
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
