 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's my suggestion: if you like, provide the source code, and invite
interested members to create their own floors and then we all share our
scenes here in this thread. I believe, that can give you plenty of new
ideas! I would participate.
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mr" <mauriceraybaud [at] hotmail dot fr>> wrote:
> kurtz le pirate <kur### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> adding a very small depth of field using aperture would make it slightly
> photographic.
>
Yes, I think that would add some nice realism to the scene. (Well, a bit of
additional realism, as it already looks quite beautiful.)
I kind of like the floor as it is. Being rather simple and non-colored, it
really makes the bold object color(s) and finish stand out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also, my only quibbles: The light source is almost *too* diffused; the shadows
looks a bit unnatural to my eyes. And, if the image is already using radiosity,
I'm not seeing the object's 'bounce' colors on the floor, the way I would expect
from such a colorful object.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/04/2018 à 19:04, kurtz le pirate a écrit :
Sorry about that clumsy subject et thank you for your comments.
Some points :
- yes, the torus shape is an isosurface.
- the floor currently uses
finish {
ambient 0.00
emission 0.10
diffuse 0.80
reflection { 0.05 fresnel on }
specular 0.90
roughness 1/20
}
normal {
wrinkles 0.40
scale 2
}
- a wooden surface and even better isowood surface, i had already
thought about it...
- no radiosity but area lights
- sharing the source code ? yes, great idea Sven.
I'll work on my code a little to make it "presentable."
Here, a new test with photon. Same floor :(
See you soon
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wip_02.jpg' (138 KB)
Preview of image 'wip_02.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
kurtz le pirate <kur### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Le 03/04/2018 à 19:04, kurtz le pirate a écrit :
> Here, a new test with photon. Same floor :(
That's looking great :)
You could do something different by:
float it on some clouds
put it on a plate like a pastry, or in a doughnut box
drip frosting onto it, or cover it in powdered sugar (snow macros)
Have it rising up out of water, or lava
have it resting on a bed of hot coals, newly "forged"
have it rest on or partially submerged in particles of some kind-
ball bearings, jacks, sand, gravel/stones (HOF), chips of the jewel it was
"carved" from...
Cover it in Escher ants (moebius)
suspend it from a networks of strings, ropes, chains, cables...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-04-05 à 13:09, kurtz le pirate a écrit :
> Le 03/04/2018 à 19:04, kurtz le pirate a écrit :
>
> Sorry about that clumsy subject et thank you for your comments.
>
> Some points :
> - yes, the torus shape is an isosurface.
> - the floor currently uses
> finish {
> ambient 0.00
> emission 0.10
> diffuse 0.80
> reflection { 0.05 fresnel on }
> specular 0.90
> roughness 1/20
> }
> normal {
> wrinkles 0.40
> scale 2
> }
> - a wooden surface and even better isowood surface, i had already
> thought about it...
> - no radiosity but area lights
>
> - sharing the source code ? yes, great idea Sven.
> I'll work on my code a little to make it "presentable."
>
> Here, a new test with photon. Same floor :(
>
> See you soon
>
>
>
Don't forget that fresnel demand that you also set an interior with an IOR.
If you don't define an IOR, it default to 1, the same as empty space.
If there is no difference in the IORs, then, there is NO fresnel
relfection at all. Fresnel reflection is governed by the change of IOR
at the surfece of the object.
Using reflection{1 fresnel} is the most realistic. After that, the IOR
of the object will affect the effective maximum reflection as well as
it's minimal level.
If the IOR is very low, like 1.01, you'll get barely any reflection at
all, even at the most grazing angles.
If the IOR is very large, like 10, then, even when looking at the
surface perpendicularly, you'll get a large amount of reflection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.04.2018 um 19:09 schrieb kurtz le pirate:
> - the floor currently uses
> finish {
> ambient 0.00
> emission 0.10
No. No. Absolutely no. Unless you /specifically/ want to model something
that glows in the dark, do NOT EVER use "emission".
If you want to brighten up shadows, use radiosity or "ambient".
> diffuse 0.80
> reflection { 0.05 fresnel on }
With "fresnel on", you also need an "interior { ior WHATEVER }" (with
WHATEVER being non-equal to zero) or you don't get any reflections at all.
Also, the level of reflection seems pretty low to me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2018 um 19:09 schrieb kurtz le pirate:
>
> > - the floor currently uses
> > finish {
> > ambient 0.00
> > emission 0.10
>
> No. No. Absolutely no. Unless you /specifically/ want to model something
> that glows in the dark, do NOT EVER use "emission".
>
> If you want to brighten up shadows, use radiosity or "ambient".
>
That's interesting; I thought ambient and emission were identical in their
effect (in a non-radiosity scene, that is.) Basically that they are
interchangable. I haven't yet seen an indication in the docs that suggests
otherwise(?)
Is there a visual difference? Or does it have to do with making sure that
POV-Ray's internal computations are performed correctly?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Waiting for the scene code, then i can hopefully show you a number of
amazing undergrounds, and give you plenty inspirations. :-)
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.04.2018 um 08:39 schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 05.04.2018 um 19:09 schrieb kurtz le pirate:
>>
>>> - the floor currently uses
>>> finish {
>>> ambient 0.00
>>> emission 0.10
>>
>> No. No. Absolutely no. Unless you /specifically/ want to model something
>> that glows in the dark, do NOT EVER use "emission".
>>
>> If you want to brighten up shadows, use radiosity or "ambient".
>>
>
> That's interesting; I thought ambient and emission were identical in their
> effect (in a non-radiosity scene, that is.) Basically that they are
> interchangable.
And that's /exactly/ the reason: From their effect in /non-radiosity/
scenes they are interchangable, but from both their /intention/ and
their effect in /radiosity/ scenes the two are worlds apart.
Using "emission" to model indirect illumination of shadowy areas so
/utterly/ defies the purpose of the feature that I /must/ rant about it,
as a matter of principle. Kind of like if you'd use "assumed_gamma 500"
or something like that.
Here's some historic background:
Brightening up shadows, to model the indirect illumination they receive
from other objects, is the very thing the "ambient" mechanism was
originally designed to do. The mechanism was literally named for a
technical term denoting this type of illumination: "ambient light". It
was the very first mechanism in a triad of mechanisms.
Next in the triad came radiosity, which serves /exactly/ the same
purpose, albeit with much higher quality. So theoretically, the
"ambient" mechanism and radiosity shouldn't be used together.
However, people figured out that radiosity still picked up the light
from the "ambient" mechanism, which had two consequences:
(1) "Classic" materials (i.e. materials originally designed for
non-radiosity scenes, and therefore using a non-zero "ambient" value)
could not be used in a radiosity scene "as is" -- unless you disabled
the "ambient" mechanism altogether by using "ambient_light 0" in the
global settings.
(2) Light-emitting materials could easily be modeled in radiosity scenes
by co-opting the "ambient" mechanism, setting it to non-zero for that
particular material -- but only if you kept the "ambient" mechanism
enabled by using a non-zero "ambient_light" in the global settings.
So in radiosity scenes, there was frequently a conflict of interest
between disabling the "ambient" mechanism (to re-use existing
materials), and keeping it enabled (to model glowing materials).
To solve this conflicts of interest, the third mechanism in the triad
was introduced in v3.7: The "emission" mechanism was /specifically/
designed to model glowing materials. It does the same in both radiosity
and non-radiosity scenes. "ambient", on the other hand, is now
explicitly intended solely to model ambient light, and is disabled
automatically in radiosity scenes, so that materials can be designed to
work equally well in both radiosity scenes (where ambient light is taken
care of by radiosity) and non-radiosity scenes (where ambient light can
be approximated using the simpler "ambient" mechanism), without changing
a jot in the material definition.
> I haven't yet seen an indication in the docs that suggests
> otherwise(?)
The tutorial talks a bit about the differences ("Using Ambient" and
"Using Emission").
Also, the reference section on ambient talks a lot about "Ambient
Lighting in shadowed areas", whereas the reference section on emission
talks about "glowing materials". In the case of your floor it is pretty
clear which one is more applicable.
> Is there a visual difference? Or does it have to do with making sure that
> POV-Ray's internal computations are performed correctly?
It has to do with not co-opting a mechanism that was designed to avoid
having to co-opting the very same mechanism you should actually be using.
It has to do with making sure your materials will work equally well in
both radiosity and non-radiosity scenes. If you use the "ambient"
mechanism to model the brightening of shadows from ambient light, your
material has a fair chance of continuing to work properly if you ever
turn on radiosity. If you use the "emission" mechanism instead, your
material is /guaranteed/ to screw it all up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
