 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 12:34, William F Pokorny escribió:
> Thanks for checking Jaime. The image is also helpful for
> understanding your cloud technique.
What you don't see on the image is the other 3 concentric blobs inside
the solid one: they use the same components placement but with
increasingly smaller radius.
> Let me add my apologies for the many times I've no doubt mistyped
> your name. I typed again this morning - Jamie - but saw it this
> time.
Don't worry... I'm already used to being called Jamie. In fact I
rarely notice it: as long as all the characters are there, it looks right.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-18.jpg' (55 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-18.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016/04/27 11:49 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
>
> Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
>
> --
> jaime
>
It's a UFO!
=:o
--
________________________________________
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> > Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
>
> Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size version
finishes rendering!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a UFO!
Good idea: if I cannot get ride of the artifacts, I could pass it for
a UFO trying to hide on the clouds using some invisibility trick... :)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> version finishes rendering!
Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-18b.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-18b.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 10:05, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> Ah yes, the cloud bottom was a problem indeed.
BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
clouds: do not use the df3 directly on the density, but declare it first
as a pigment, then use it on a "gradient y" density map with a less
turbulent version at the bottom. Works nicely...
density{
gradient y
density_map{
[0 pigment_pattern{p_df3}
...little turbulence at bottom...
]
[1 pigment_pattern{p_df3}
...full turbulence at the top...
]
}
}
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> > version finishes rendering!
>
> Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
> one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
> guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
> The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
> pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
I guess the blob containers makes for fewer media calculations - that's a decent
time for such a render.
What causes the artifacts, is it something about the way blobs are implemented?
How about using a merge of the blob component spheres instead?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> > Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> > version finishes rendering!
>
> Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
> one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
> guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
> The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
> pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
>
> --
> jaime
I feel for you concerning the artifacts. I have tried all kinds of tricks to get
rid of them and usually end up in a worse place than I began with. Blasted
container objects! May they be for ever confined to the ninth circle of hell
(the one reserved for treachery)!
I ended up using a single containing object (box or plane) and then filling it
with a skewed y-gradient density to get a flat bottom and then adding a mixture
of wrinkles, bozo and crackle (form<1, 0, 0>) to try to approximate fluffy tops.
Some of my images over at www.landofthefirst.com were created using this. I am
still not 100% happy with them.
I think your idea much better (and I love the results). More ideas to play with.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-4-2016 12:59, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 27/04/16 a las 10:05, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> Ah yes, the cloud bottom was a problem indeed.
>
> BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
> clouds: do not use the df3 directly on the density, but declare it first
> as a pigment, then use it on a "gradient y" density map with a less
> turbulent version at the bottom. Works nicely...
Thanks! Shall try!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
