|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
>
> Hmm, after further scientific analysis, it looks like a shoe footprint(?)
>
>
>
Reflection, probably from an HDR background.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/24/2017 5:38 PM, Alain wrote:
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image?
>>> Very curious.
>>
>> Hmm, after further scientific analysis, it looks like a shoe footprint(?)
>>
>>
>>
> Reflection, probably from an HDR background.
yes ... abandoned paper mill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-07-24 04:13 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
Looks like the reflection of an arched church window.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2017 3:00 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-07-24 04:13 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image?
>> Very curious.
>
> Looks like the reflection of an arched church window.
>
It does look like the reflection of a stained glass window. Especially
if you flip the image upside down.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (697 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 1:54 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
> were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
> trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
> fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
> did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
> couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
> more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
>
I like the texture and yes a bit too much translucency.
I appreciated the description and must read up on vertex weights. As I
have a model that is showing artefacts that Ctrl + N does not fix.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
> were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
> trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
> fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
> did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
> couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
> more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
>
The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>> a beauty run!
>>
>
> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
>
I thought it was the translucency that was showing up on the shadow.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 2:55 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/31/2017 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>>
>>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>>> a beauty run!
>>>
>>
>> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
>>
>
> I thought it was the translucency that was showing up on the shadow.
that's reflection of brick wall and part of window in hdr probe ... but
closer to object the floor is showing the translucency i was talking about
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 2:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>> a beauty run!
>>
>
> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
well i'll only take partial credit for that ... it's an image map.
getting the uv mapping correct was the challenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |