 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime, glad my suggestion worked well. Honestly I nearly didn't say anything, I
> thought it was too obvious and that you were bound to have tried it already! I
> shall wheel out random suggestions more often in that case :)
Nothing is too obvious, at least if I'm involved...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-4-2016 12:59, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
> clouds:
It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
patterns and with a gradient y density.
I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
samples 50 though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'my_makecloud2_test_day.png' (852 KB)
Preview of image 'my_makecloud2_test_day.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 30/04/16 a las 13:27, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
> left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
> safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
> samples 50 though.
That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.04.2016 um 18:26 schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> El 30/04/16 a las 13:27, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
>> left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
>> safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
>> samples 50 though.
>
> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
Different version?
Media sampling method 3 had various bogosities until somewhen between
3.7.0 and today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
> original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
> patterns and with a gradient y density.
How do you achieve the atmospheric haze effect?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-4-2016 19:06, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
>> original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
>> patterns and with a gradient y density.
>
> How do you achieve the atmospheric haze effect?
>
>
That is a fog. The scene is Gilles Tran's.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-4-2016 18:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
>
This is basically what I do; most other details are Gilles' original
settings (more or less):
#declare P_cloud2_1 =
pigment {density_file df3 "cloud2_1.df3"
lambda 3
omega 0.6
interpolate 1
translate -0.5
scale <1, -1, 1>
}
#declare Cloud1 =
box {-0.5,0.5
texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
hollow
interior {
media {
scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
intervals 1
samples 100, 1000
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
turbulence Turbulence*0.1
]
[1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
turbulence Turbulence*2
]
}
}
}
}
scale <4/3,1,1>
}
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, forgot to mention: version 3.7.1 alpha (blablabla) +av123
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 01/05/16 a las 08:52, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
The only notable difference I see is that I'm using scattering type 2
with default extinction.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2016 9:35, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 01/05/16 a las 08:52, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
>
> The only notable difference I see is that I'm using scattering type 2
> with default extinction.
>
The solution was straightforward (see also image):
#declare Cloud1 =
box {-0.5,0.5
texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
hollow
interior {
media {
scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
intervals 1
samples 50, 1000
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
scale 50 warp {turbulence 0.1} scale 1/50
]
[1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
scale 50 warp {turbulence 2} scale 1/50
]
}
}
}
}
scale <4/3,1,1>
}
I shall try your scattering now.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'my_makecloud2_test_day_2016.png' (391 KB)
Preview of image 'my_makecloud2_test_day_2016.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
