POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : Whats Next Server Time
28 Mar 2024 19:07:14 EDT (-0400)
  Whats Next (Message 11 to 20 of 52)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Alain
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 24 Jul 2017 17:37:17
Message: <5976688d$1@news.povray.org>

> "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

From: Jim Holsenback
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 25 Jul 2017 06:43:14
Message: <597720c2@news.povray.org>
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

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 25 Jul 2017 09:59:07
Message: <59774eab$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 25 Jul 2017 11:14:18
Message: <5977604a@news.povray.org>
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

From: Jim Holsenback
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 30 Jul 2017 20:54:42
Message: <597e7fd2@news.povray.org>
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'
rollysphere.png


 

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 30 Jul 2017 23:22:38
Message: <597ea27e$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 31 Jul 2017 02:46:50
Message: <597ed25a$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 31 Jul 2017 02:55:40
Message: <597ed46c$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Jim Holsenback
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 31 Jul 2017 06:23:18
Message: <597f0516$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Jim Holsenback
Subject: Re: Whats Next
Date: 31 Jul 2017 06:34:50
Message: <597f07ca@news.povray.org>
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

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.