Just a little thing, a side effect of experimenting with negative strength  
blob components for the air bubble icicles. It is wrong. I left the  
glows/lightsources out of the scaling, so they aren't in the right place.  
I have one rendering which have them in the proper place.

Most puzzling though is the color of the object. I didn't make it in any  
way *that* color blue.

It is:

   color_map {
    [0.00 rgbt <0.98,0.97,0.96,filterVal+0.1>]
    [0.03 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
    [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
    [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.94,0.94,filterVal+0.1>]
    [0.42 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
    [1.00 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
   }

It only seems to behave that way in the presence of the  
glows/lightsources....which again are not *that* color blue. Some  
graininess in the reflections in places. Boooooo!

The whole thing, save the glows and lightsources, is a single blob object  
constructed with loops.

Ian

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'blobtest2011.png' (134 KB)

Preview of image 'blobtest2011.png'

> Just a little thing, a side effect of experimenting with negative
> strength blob components for the air bubble icicles. It is wrong. I left
> the glows/lightsources out of the scaling, so they aren't in the right
> place. I have one rendering which have them in the proper place.
>
> Most puzzling though is the color of the object. I didn't make it in any
> way *that* color blue.
>
> It is:
>
> color_map {
> [0.00 rgbt <0.98,0.97,0.96,filterVal+0.1>]
> [0.03 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
> [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
> [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.94,0.94,filterVal+0.1>]
> [0.42 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
> [1.00 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
> }
>
> It only seems to behave that way in the presence of the
> glows/lightsources....which again are not *that* color blue. Some
> graininess in the reflections in places. Boooooo!
>
> The whole thing, save the glows and lightsources, is a single blob
> object constructed with loops.
>
> Ian
>

Looking at that color_map, I'd expect it to be somewhat green.

Do you have any fade_color? Does it tend toward blue?

Does changing the background's colour have any effect? Right now, it's 
deep blue...

You have some reflection. What colour is it?



Alain

Post a reply to this message

finish {
   ambient 0
   diffuse 1
   brilliance 0.05
   specular 0.5
   roughness 0.001
   reflection 0.125
  }


   interior {
    fade_distance 2
    fade_power 3 // maybe this?
    ior 1.45
    caustics 1.0
   }

Actually the bluish look of the background comes from the glows, as it i
s  

really black and the ground white.

Weird stuff.

Ian

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:32:24 -0500, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:


>> Just a little thing, a side effect of experimenting with negative
>> strength blob components for the air bubble icicles. It is wrong. I l
eft
>> the glows/lightsources out of the scaling, so they aren't in the righ
t
>> place. I have one rendering which have them in the proper place.
>>
>> Most puzzling though is the color of the object. I didn't make it in 
any
>> way *that* color blue.
>>
>> It is:
>>
>> color_map {
>> [0.00 rgbt <0.98,0.97,0.96,filterVal+0.1>]
>> [0.03 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
>> [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
>> [0.40 rgbt <0.91,0.94,0.94,filterVal+0.1>]
>> [0.42 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
>> [1.00 rgbt <0.91,0.97,0.93,filterVal+0.1>]
>> }
>>
>> It only seems to behave that way in the presence of the
>> glows/lightsources....which again are not *that* color blue. Some
>> graininess in the reflections in places. Boooooo!
>>
>> The whole thing, save the glows and lightsources, is a single blob
>> object constructed with loops.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> Looking at that color_map, I'd expect it to be somewhat green.
>
> Do you have any fade_color? Does it tend toward blue?
>
> Does changing the background's colour have any effect? Right now, it's
  

> deep blue...
>
> You have some reflection. What colour is it?
>
>
>
> Alain


-- 

Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

>
> finish {
> ambient 0
> diffuse 1

Try diffuse 0, or some smallish value.

> brilliance 0.05

Extremely low value! Your surface reaction to illumination is almost 
independent from the direction of the incident light. Such a value is 
rather unexpected for a shiny, reflective surface.
I'm partial of using larger value, at least 1, probably more.

> specular 0.5
> roughness 0.001
> reflection 0.125
> }

For your material, I'd use some variable reflection with fresnel and 
conserve_energy, but, here it's mostly a test.
Suggestion: reflection{0.05, 0.25 fresnel} conserve_energy

>
>
> interior {
> fade_distance 2
> fade_power 3 // maybe this?

This should be fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001.
fade_power 3 is totaly unrealistic in the real world. It may be used to 
simulate a light_source glowing through some medium that restricts it's 
propagation, like in some underwater scene.
The realistic values are:
interior: fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001
light_source: fade_power 2

> ior 1.45
> caustics 1.0
remove this if you use photons.

> }
>
> Actually the bluish look of the background comes from the glows, as it
> is really black and the ground white.
>
> Weird stuff.
>
> Ian
>

You don't define fade_color, so it defaults to black.

Finaly, it looks like your sphere is reflecting your glow colour.




Alain

Post a reply to this message

Ok, glows off, adapted texture in use (seems dark, like impure glass?), 
 

and many more spheres. This takes an awful amount of time with glows on.


Ultimately, I need to make this texture consistent with generic ice.

Ian

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:38:13 -0500, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:


>>
>> finish {
>> ambient 0
>> diffuse 1
>
> Try diffuse 0, or some smallish value.
>
>> brilliance 0.05
>
> Extremely low value! Your surface reaction to illumination is almost  

> independent from the direction of the incident light. Such a value is 
 

> rather unexpected for a shiny, reflective surface.
> I'm partial of using larger value, at least 1, probably more.
>
>> specular 0.5
>> roughness 0.001
>> reflection 0.125
>> }
>
> For your material, I'd use some variable reflection with fresnel and  

> conserve_energy, but, here it's mostly a test.
> Suggestion: reflection{0.05, 0.25 fresnel} conserve_energy
>
>>
>>
>> interior {
>> fade_distance 2
>> fade_power 3 // maybe this?
>
> This should be fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001.
> fade_power 3 is totaly unrealistic in the real world. It may be used t
o  

> simulate a light_source glowing through some medium that restricts it'
s  

> propagation, like in some underwater scene.
> The realistic values are:
> interior: fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001
> light_source: fade_power 2
>
>> ior 1.45
>> caustics 1.0
> remove this if you use photons.
>
>> }
>>
>> Actually the bluish look of the background comes from the glows, as i
t
>> is really black and the ground white.
>>
>> Weird stuff.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
> You don't define fade_color, so it defaults to black.
>
> Finaly, it looks like your sphere is reflecting your glow colour.
>
>
>
>
> Alain


-- 

Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'blobtest2011_0_0.png' (180 KB)

Preview of image 'blobtest2011_0_0.png'

Glows correctly positioned, but not using the corrected texture. The dee
p  

blue one took 3 days, the other (with corrected texture) took 15 min (wi
th  

radiosity?!?)...go figure... O__o'

So much to learn...

Ian

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:08:59 -0500, [GDS|Entropy]  

<gdsHYentropyAThotmailDTcom> wrote:

> Ok, glows off, adapted texture in use (seems dark, like impure glass?)
,
> and many more spheres. This takes an awful amount of time with glows o
n.
>
> Ultimately, I need to make this texture consistent with generic ice.
>
> Ian
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:38:13 -0500, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>

>>>
>>> finish {
>>> ambient 0
>>> diffuse 1
>>
>> Try diffuse 0, or some smallish value.
>>
>>> brilliance 0.05
>>
>> Extremely low value! Your surface reaction to illumination is almost
>> independent from the direction of the incident light. Such a value is

>> rather unexpected for a shiny, reflective surface.
>> I'm partial of using larger value, at least 1, probably more.
>>
>>> specular 0.5
>>> roughness 0.001
>>> reflection 0.125
>>> }
>>
>> For your material, I'd use some variable reflection with fresnel and
>> conserve_energy, but, here it's mostly a test.
>> Suggestion: reflection{0.05, 0.25 fresnel} conserve_energy
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> interior {
>>> fade_distance 2
>>> fade_power 3 // maybe this?
>>
>> This should be fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001.
>> fade_power 3 is totaly unrealistic in the real world. It may be used 
to
>> simulate a light_source glowing through some medium that restricts it
's
>> propagation, like in some underwater scene.
>> The realistic values are:
>> interior: fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001
>> light_source: fade_power 2
>>
>>> ior 1.45
>>> caustics 1.0
>> remove this if you use photons.
>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Actually the bluish look of the background comes from the glows, as 
it
>>> is really black and the ground white.
>>>
>>> Weird stuff.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>
>> You don't define fade_color, so it defaults to black.
>>
>> Finaly, it looks like your sphere is reflecting your glow colour.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alain
>
>


-- 

Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'blobtest2011_0.png' (163 KB) Download 'blobtest2011_0_0.png' (225 KB)

Preview of image 'blobtest2011_0.png'

Preview of image 'blobtest2011_0_0.png'

[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Glows correctly positioned, but not using the corrected texture. The
> deep blue one took 3 days, the other (with corrected texture) took 15
> min (with radiosity?!?)...go figure... O__o'
>
> So much to learn...
>
> Ian
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:08:59 -0500, [GDS|Entropy]
> <gdsHYentropyAThotmailDTcom> wrote:
>
>> Ok, glows off, adapted texture in use (seems dark, like impure
>> glass?), and many more spheres. This takes an awful amount of time
>> with glows on.
>>
>> Ultimately, I need to make this texture consistent with generic ice.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:38:13 -0500, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>>

>>>>
>>>> finish {
>>>> ambient 0
>>>> diffuse 1
>>>
>>> Try diffuse 0, or some smallish value.
>>>
>>>> brilliance 0.05
>>>
>>> Extremely low value! Your surface reaction to illumination is almost
>>> independent from the direction of the incident light. Such a value
>>> is rather unexpected for a shiny, reflective surface.
>>> I'm partial of using larger value, at least 1, probably more.
>>>
>>>> specular 0.5
>>>> roughness 0.001
>>>> reflection 0.125
>>>> }
>>>
>>> For your material, I'd use some variable reflection with fresnel and
>>> conserve_energy, but, here it's mostly a test.
>>> Suggestion: reflection{0.05, 0.25 fresnel} conserve_energy
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> interior {
>>>> fade_distance 2
>>>> fade_power 3 // maybe this?
>>>
>>> This should be fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001.
>>> fade_power 3 is totaly unrealistic in the real world. It may be
>>> used to simulate a light_source glowing through some medium that
>>> restricts it's propagation, like in some underwater scene.
>>> The realistic values are:
>>> interior: fade_power 1 OR fade_power 1001
>>> light_source: fade_power 2
>>>
>>>> ior 1.45
>>>> caustics 1.0
>>> remove this if you use photons.
>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Actually the bluish look of the background comes from the glows,
>>>> as it is really black and the ground white.
>>>>
>>>> Weird stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't define fade_color, so it defaults to black.
>>>
>>> Finaly, it looks like your sphere is reflecting your glow colour.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

I know what you mean about so much to learn!  Its never ending!  Just when 
you have worked one thing out, something else gets in your way and its back 
to the books!  All good fun though.

Its probably not what you want to hear, but I actually like the first pic 
better, the one that took 3 days, the blue looks much nicer to me...

Cheers Dre

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:18:14 -0500, Dre <and### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I know what you mean about so much to learn!  Its never ending!  Just  
> when you have worked one thing out, something else gets in your way and  
> its back to the books!  All good fun though.

Indeed! I dislike easily learned things; the more complicated the better!  
;D
This is why I pursue things like this in cycles; multiple complex topics  
in rotation capture the eye of the mind far more effectively than some  
singularly myopic aspiration.

> Its probably not what you want to hear, but I actually like the first pic
> better, the one that took 3 days, the blue looks much nicer to me...

Actually, from a purely aesthetic perspective, I agree completely. I like  
the darker blue images far more than the others.
However, the desired outcome of this experiment is a realistic  
distribution of "bubbles" within an icicle construct (in these images,  
they are sin and cos distributed helices). Not shown within this thread  
are more advanced examples; but they looks like hammered dog poo (they is  
all about distribution and enclosure within the icicle object, not looking  
nice). So far, the render times have been prohibitively lengthy...to quote  
Warp, I will need to find a different way unless waiting "for the sun to  
die" is an acceptable amount of render time . ;D

I think this will come to tessellation...which means I will release an  
alpha before I go that far, with capabilities which allow reasonable  
render times.

> Cheers Dre

Ian

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:18:14 -0500, Dre <and### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I know what you mean about so much to learn!  Its never ending!  Just  
> when you have worked one thing out, something else gets in your way and  
> its back to the books!  All good fun though.

Indeed! I dislike easily learned things; the more complicated the better!  
;D
This is why I pursue things like this in cycles; multiple complex topics  
in rotation capture the eye of the mind far more effectively than some  
singularly myopic aspiration.

> Its probably not what you want to hear, but I actually like the first pic
> better, the one that took 3 days, the blue looks much nicer to me...

Actually, from a purely aesthetic perspective, I agree completely. I like  
the darker blue images far more than the others.
However, the desired outcome of this experiment is a realistic  
distribution of "bubbles" within an icicle construct (in these images,  
they are sin and cos distributed helices). Not shown within this thread  
are more advanced examples; but they look like hammered dog poo (they are  
all about distribution and enclosure within the icicle object, not looking  
nice). So far, the render times have been prohibitively lengthy...to quote  
Warp, I will need to find a different way unless waiting "for the sun to  
die" is an acceptable amount of render time . ;D

I think this will come to tessellation...which means I will release an  
alpha before I go that far, with capabilities which allow reasonable  
render times.

> Cheers Dre

Ian

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Post a reply to this message