 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's dark in caves - therefore I'm used to cave images lighted with
> torches, head lamps or other other point lights. I expect strong
> specular reflections and light fading - especially in humid caves.
>
> With this lighting the cave looks "flat" - I'm sure you are aware of
> this.
Yes, it was only a test render of the shapes, so I wanted everything
visible. The final lighting should be "natural", maybe looking from the
interior to the entrance with a sunny exterior, or perhaps with a hole
on the ceiling as Sven suggested. But the torches idea is tempting... ;)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'd say that shape-wise, you're off to a good start so far.
>
Thanks!
> Your material texturing probably needs to have some more ---
> differentiation. In my mind's eye, I conceive of layers and strata
> and veins of different minerals and sediments, and oxides, and
> benthic layers, etc. The homogeneous red-rust-brown looks like
> someone sprayed it with pigment or rusty water.
Yes, it was just the first texture I came up with... but making
something remotely credible in geological terms is going to be difficult.
> as for real caves - browse around and see what _you_ think.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=caves
I already did that search, and it's bookmarked for reference. :)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 29/02/16 a las 18:05, Sven Littkowski escribió:
> Here my suggestion for the illumination:
>
> an irregular hole somewhere at the ceiling, where some light rays
> come in and are even visible in the dusty air inside the cave. Some
> radiosity and air that distributes the light further.
Yes, that was one of my first ideas for the lighting. It's the most
"pretty" among the candidates.
> Maybe a seedling or small plant in the center of the light. :-)
Maybe a crystal cluster better? ;)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 29/02/16 a las 18:01, Sven Littkowski escribió:
> My method would have been to create an iso surface and divide this
> from a box. The resulting difference would be the cave.
I discarded that one without testing it first, because in my mind it
sounded way too slow to render.
> For the stalagtites and -mites I would have used blobs.
I've thought about blobs, as I did use them for a cavern on a very old
IRTC entry... they can give more realistic "accumulative" shapes, but I
fear they will look too smooth.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> Just a gentle reminder that TC-RTC finishes today (GMT) and all entries
> need to be rated. :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Oh, I'd rated last week. Since most guys sent 2 or 3 images, I don't expect a
number of ratings anywhere near of the number of entries.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> I discarded that one without testing it first, because in my mind it
> sounded way too slow to render.
Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render it?
Maybe use a heightfield?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>
>> I discarded that one without testing it first, because in my mind
>> it sounded way too slow to render.
>
> Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render it?
I would kill for a simple way to do that... converting isosurfaces to
meshes.
> Maybe use a heightfield?
I thought about making it with several hf's rotated around, but it
would still lack the "overhangs" that isosurfaces allow.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/29/2016 6:09 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 29/02/16 a las 14:54, Stephen escribió:
>> On 2/29/2016 12:40 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>>> Well, after looking at images from these amazing caves, I hope
>>> you're joking... it would be terrifically difficult to go for
>>> something even remotely resembling that.
>>
>>
>> They do use coloured lights around the rocks and in the water, you
>> know. :-)
>>
>
> Yes, I know... I was referring to the intricate shapes of the
> stalagmites and stalactites.
>
They look pretty good to me.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > Can you do the difference, convert it to a mesh, and THEN render it?
>
> I would kill for a simple way to do that... converting isosurfaces to
> meshes.
Are you aware of Kevin Loney's isosurface approximation?
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
The site links to the long dead Geocities for the source, but there appears to
be a new site, which I haven't investigated:
http://www.winsite.com/Multimedia/3D-Modeling-CAD/Isosurface/
A version updated by Jaap Frank and Tor Olav Kristensen is available at p.b.s-f:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3C47cc76fd%40news.povray.org%3E/
I have had mixed results with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> I thought about making it with several hf's rotated around, but it
> would still lack the "overhangs" that isosurfaces allow.
Why not use reasonable fast isosurfaces?
Sometimes Samuel T. Benge's Isorender approach gives good results
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/thread/%3Cweb.525dcd797919e005c8060b460@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=40
4955&toff=50).
Here are two examples with my "universal test scene".
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'iso-tests.jpg' (526 KB)
Preview of image 'iso-tests.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
