 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are so many different types of crystals out there, so I am looking
forward to see a whole lot of new crystal and rock images to come here!
This is really breath-taking.
On 17.02.2016 07:18, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> The world of POV-Ray crystallography is on fire this week... after the
> discovery of Thomasite, now it's the turn of Vivesite. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 17/02/16 a las 23:55, clipka escribió:
> I guess it's worth frying a few more ;)
Thanks, but I think there is no need to fry neurons anymore: I was
doing it too complicated by creating the geometry AFTER the tracing on
to the surface. Now I'm creating the geometry at the origin and using
transforms.inc macros later... as I should have done from the start.
Typical of me, anyhow. :(
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> First test using an isosurface as base... nice, except for some ugly
> artifacts on focal blur, due to a too strong light source.
>
> --
> jaime
I really have to unlurk for this!
This kind of thing got me into ray-tracing to begin with.
Beautiful!
Can I ask, in broad strokes, how you did this? I tend to render distances, and
haven't done much in the way of upclose and detailed work like this. Looking at
these two images I think I would like to try.
Simon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Simon J. Cambridge" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Can I ask, in broad strokes, how you did this? I tend to render distances, and
> haven't done much in the way of upclose and detailed work like this. Looking at
> these two images I think I would like to try.
>
OK, ignore that! I was so busy admiring the images that I missed this:
>
> The crystals are procedurally generated using triangle meshes from the
> scratch. A height_field was used to trace the 4 base points, and then
> the crystal was grown following the normal at the center point. No area
> light nor radiosity this time... but I used photons+dispersion and a
> strong focal blur.
>
I'll just go back to lurking!
Simon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Beautiful!
Thanks!
> Can I ask, in broad strokes, how you did this?
I will publish the code this weekend, but it's really easy. Just old
& good trace() function and simple triangle geometry, placed with the
help of Reorient_Trans(). The texture is a bit tricky, but nothing too
complex really. Here is attached a test with the geometry updated to
hexagonal prisms, which look much more credible.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'crystals-10.jpg' (51 KB)
Preview of image 'crystals-10.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
First try at colored crystal using color on the texture and interior
media (just a test: no aa).
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'crystals-12.jpg' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'crystals-12.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> First try at colored crystal using color on the texture and interior
> media (just a test: no aa).
This is lovely work. Prelude to a Crystal of the Week page?
btw, why media and not sslt?
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is lovely work.
Thanks!
> Prelude to a Crystal of the Week page?
The variety on the world of natural crystals is awesome, so, yes... it
could well be a source for a COTW page on my site. Thanks for the idea!
> btw, why media and not sslt?
TBH, mostly due to sticking to what I know and can type from memory.
But I also seem to remember having done a few tests and finding sslt was
slower for some simple effects like this one... but maybe I'm wrong.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > Prelude to a Crystal of the Week page?
> The variety on the world of natural crystals is awesome, so, yes... it
> could well be a source for a COTW page on my site. Thanks for the idea!
Excellent, shall keep my eyes open for it :)
> > btw, why media and not sslt?
> TBH, mostly due to sticking to what I know and can type from memory.
> But I also seem to remember having done a few tests and finding sslt was
> slower for some simple effects like this one... but maybe I'm wrong.
Honestly, I don't use either of them often enough to do anything quickly, or to
know which works best in any given scenario... was just curious!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Really an amazing Result, Jamie!
Your talent is still unbeaten unique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
