 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK ... not what you expected ;-)
Playing around with subsurface
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (4485 KB)
Preview of image 'work.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>
> Playing around with subsurface
Para-Dice! Nice!
--
Do not judge my words, judge my actions.
---
http://www.avast.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>
> Playing around with subsurface
Nice.
Now add focal blur and radiosity and report back the render time difference.
Mwahahahaaaaaa!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-2-2014 5:16, James Holsenback wrote:
> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>
> Playing around with subsurface
Nice stuff and the pun is very appropriate indeed :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/12/2014 02:04 AM, jhu wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>>
>> Playing around with subsurface
>
> Nice.
>
> Now add focal blur and radiosity and report back the render time difference.
> Mwahahahaaaaaa!!!
>
Already done that ... with radiosity 47+ hrs and I didn't like the
results. I used Radiosity_Fast with pretrace_end 0.004, count 256 and
gray_threshold 1 /without/ sslt to gather the rad data. It looked pretty
decent. The 2nd run with gathered rad data and sslt missed the mark :-(
Is pre-gathered rad data a no-no in this case???
This version /tries/ to try to resolve with a 2nd fill light more
reasonable render time ~15hrs
Obviously I still have some work to do!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/12/2014 03:24 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 12-2-2014 5:16, James Holsenback wrote:
>> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>>
>> Playing around with subsurface
>
> Nice stuff and the pun is very appropriate indeed :-)
I'm suffering from the recent round of corny-ness in off-topic, and
couldn't resist ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-2-2014 12:58, James Holsenback wrote:
> I'm suffering from the recent round of corny-ness in off-topic, and
> couldn't resist ;-)
>
I have not been there for some considerable time, so...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks very nice indeed! =)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>
> Playing around with subsurface
Very nice, your dice.
I only wonder about the table. It seems to be of marble, a classic material for
SSLT. I suspect that there is no SSLT on it. But I fear this will prolong the
rendering time a bit.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/12/2014 01:34 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> OK ... not what you expected ;-)
>>
>> Playing around with subsurface
>
> Very nice, your dice.
>
> I only wonder about the table. It seems to be of marble, a classic material for
> SSLT. I suspect that there is no SSLT on it. But I fear this will prolong the
> rendering time a bit.
well I'm calling it a ground plane ... zero thickness box just big
enough to not see the edges with the camera view. It /does/ look like
marble but it done as follows:
#declare GroundPlaneMat =
material {
texture {
#if (Detail)
pigment {
planar
scale 0.5
turbulence 1 lambda 3
color_map {
[0 srgb <0.9570,0.9570,0.8594>]
[1 srgb <0.9570,0.9570,0.8594>/2] }
}
finish {
specular 0.15
roughness 1e-1
}
normal{
planar
scale 0.5
turbulence 1 lambda 3
}
#else
pigment { srgb 1 }
#end
}
}
the /main/ reason no sslt on ground plane is the scale factor in globals
used to make dice look good did not suit for the ground plane, and as
far as I know you can't have two different scales ... btw: used 15.
Here's the dice material:
#declare DieMaterial_=
#local Color = <0.5500,0.0900,0.0900>;
#local T_val = Color*2.75;
material {
texture {
#if (Detail)
pigment { srgb Color }
finish {
specular 0.5
roughness 1/80
reflection { 0, srgb Color*0.125 }
#if ( Subsurface )
subsurface { translucency srgb T_val }
#end
}
#else
pigment { srgb 1 }
#end
}
interior {
ior 2.5
}
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
