 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2017 12:34, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> 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
>
Oh! Yes, I can imagine the puzzle for this kind of object! ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
metal version while i consider my next move ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (985 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>
>
>
Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>
> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
Yes, I agree. Maybe it needs slightly 'blurred reflections.' That seems to be a
tell-tale sign of 'metal' (except for polished chrome?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
>> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
i used to shine it up before i posted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2017 4:01 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> Yes, I agree. Maybe it needs slightly 'blurred reflections.' That seems to be a
> tell-tale sign of 'metal' (except for polished chrome?)
i'm pretty sure that'll happen in version 2.0 ... i'm already working on
it. i /had/ a doh moment with the procedural normal i'm using when i
realized that with the current uv map i /should/ have used warp { planar }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-8-2017 12:46, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
>>> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
> i used to shine it up before i posted
Aaah! You kept /those/ out of the camera shot! :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/08/2017 11:46, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
> i used to shine it up before i posted
That takes me back a few years. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/20/2017 7:38 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface
finally made some progress with that ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (776 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 8/20/2017 7:38 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface
>
> finally made some progress with that ...
Sure did. I was wondering if those red hot pixels from before might be purely a
side effect of SSS or if somehow caused by a small amount of reflection in the
texture or external object (floor).
Apparently I never asked about it before, and I can't see any reflection in
either of the marble texture renders.
Not that the other marble looked too transparent to me, like what do I know of
marble in all its possible appearances, but I can see how this one has more
solidness or perceivable larger size compared to that.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
