Just playing around with photons. I couldn't get the light angle to show 
photons from the stone, when I did the gold just didn't look right 
(angle too low). The stone and band have separate photon blocks ... 
stone has target/refraction/reflection/caustics/dispersion ... the band 
just reflection. I guess that's okay because I like how the photons off 
the band looks on the tile ground plane. Look closer and you can see 
some caustics/dispersion in the stone.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (516 KB)

Preview of image 'work.png'

On 13/09/12 01:48, James Holsenback wrote:
> Just playing around with photons. I couldn't get the light angle to
> show photons from the stone, when I did the gold just didn't look
> right (angle too low). The stone and band have separate photon blocks
> ... stone has target/refraction/reflection/caustics/dispersion ...
> the band just reflection. I guess that's okay because I like how the
> photons off the band looks on the tile ground plane. Look closer and
> you can see some caustics/dispersion in the stone.

   Nice design! ...perhaps a bit dangerous, with all these spikes. :)

   Did you try changing the orientation of the ring respect to the light?
I mean, right now, the stone mostly faces the light, so the photons must
be all on the back of it, out of view...

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 09/13/2012 06:20 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> On 13/09/12 01:48, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Just playing around with photons. I couldn't get the light angle to
>> show photons from the stone, when I did the gold just didn't look
>> right (angle too low). The stone and band have separate photon blocks
>> ... stone has target/refraction/reflection/caustics/dispersion ...
>> the band just reflection. I guess that's okay because I like how the
>> photons off the band looks on the tile ground plane. Look closer and
>> you can see some caustics/dispersion in the stone.
>
>    Nice design! ...perhaps a bit dangerous, with all these spikes. :)
>
>    Did you try changing the orientation of the ring respect to the light?
> I mean, right now, the stone mostly faces the light, so the photons must
> be all on the back of it, out of view...
>
> --
> Jaime
>

for sure there's a better angle in there somewhere ... I'll just have to 
summon the patience (not much of that these days) to find it. thanks for 
the feedback :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2012 3:47 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>
> for sure there's a better angle in there somewhere ... I'll just have to
> summon the patience (not much of that these days) to find it. thanks for
> the feedback :-)



I like the design too. It reminds me of St's

PS you've been quiet recently.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/13/2012 02:11 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 3:47 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>> for sure there's a better angle in there somewhere ... I'll just have to
>> summon the patience (not much of that these days) to find it. thanks for
>> the feedback :-)
>


Kind of like the pose as it is ... playing are with moving the light 
source instead. scratch back lighting already ... slow going with 
photons/dispersion, but test values help a bit.

> PS you've been quiet recently.

Self imposed exile ... spending too much time on the computer and 
neglecting responsibilities. Since I'm /still/ living on someone else's 
dime started feeling a little guilty.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2012 2:47 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 02:11 PM, Stephen wrote:

>>

>
> Kind of like the pose as it is ... playing are with moving the light
> source instead. scratch back lighting already ... slow going with
> photons/dispersion, but test values help a bit.
>

Yes, I like the pose too. How about putting a pin under the jewel to 
raise it and show it off.

>> PS you've been quiet recently.
>
> Self imposed exile ... spending too much time on the computer and
> neglecting responsibilities. Since I'm /still/ living on someone else's
> dime started feeling a little guilty.
>
>

Oops! I understand.
I've got a project in mind, a 1908 racing car. But I cannot afford the 
time. Guilt too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message