Hello all.

Another developmental, this time for the night version. I've switched off
all the foliage, people and detail like windows etc to save time. At
present, each light source is a point-light but I'll probably go for small
area lights eventually.

The previous version used fade_power=2 and looked really cool, but the pools
of light were too small to make out the boulder except in silhouette. This
version uses fade_power=1, and I prefer being able to make out the shape of
the planetoid a little. Plus, those deep shadows on the rock rock!

I've also got radiosity turned on, although the effect is probably too
subtle to see, except for a hint of night sky blue on the upward building
faces.

Comments?

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'light_shadow.jpg' (135 KB)

Preview of image 'light_shadow.jpg'

Very nice - this lighting looks really good to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Here your super big icon - as a moveable tooltip in opera webbrowser.
Shadow could be possible too ;-)
Just for fun and experimenting with an own program launcher, organizer and
mind manager by simple html-CSS-javascript webpages on the harddisc. The
normal table structure is boring. Its simple as never expected. Clicking
within the red CSS hover-area starts *.lnk's (for example single
applications or collections of applications incl. parameters) or other
html-pages. The screenshot doesn't show the mouse cursor, opera's own
tooltip and the appearing and moving of the big icon while the mouse ist
within the hover area of the scanner icon. Outside this area the big icon
disappears. But I've never done povray yet.

greez
PCfan

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fun.jpg' (539 KB)

Preview of image 'fun.jpg'

Post a reply to this message

Hiya Bill.

Needs those windows back... and lit. Something unnatural about invisible 
lights, of course. ; )

Remember that 'area_light' causes a central, point-like source to show up on 
surfaces and only the shadows would be affected.

What's the render-time? And on what kind of computer? Is a final render 
going to get into days instead of hours or something?

Bob Hughes

Post a reply to this message

> Hello all.
> 
> Another developmental, this time for the night version. I've switched off
> all the foliage, people and detail like windows etc to save time. At
> present, each light source is a point-light but I'll probably go for small
> area lights eventually.
> 
> The previous version used fade_power=2 and looked really cool, but the pools
> of light were too small to make out the boulder except in silhouette. This
> version uses fade_power=1, and I prefer being able to make out the shape of
> the planetoid a little. Plus, those deep shadows on the rock rock!
> 
> I've also got radiosity turned on, although the effect is probably too
> subtle to see, except for a hint of night sky blue on the upward building
> faces.
> 
> Comments?

Great but a little too dark !

-- 
Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net

A+

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> wrote:
> Hiya Bill.
>
> Needs those windows back... and lit.
I knew somebody would say that! Lighting the windows might be a little
tricky to do well. If the windows are lit, there should be some indistinct
detail within for  realism... not an issue in daylight! I could simply make
them glow, of course, but I'm not sure it would look right. I'm open to
suggestions...

I had thought that this time of night might well be after lights-out, and
these lamps are like streetlamps.

> What's the render-time? And on what kind of computer? Is a final render
> going to get into days instead of hours or something?
The test renders are already into days! I honestly don't know what the spec
of this machine is... it's in my office, and is about four years old. It's
at least 266MHz and 256MB RAM... I think. The current version of the scene
takes over four days to render with everything switched on at 1280x1024,
but my colleague's brand-new Dell can do it within a weekend. The night
version takes longer because of all the light sources. Yeek.

I've slowed down development a bit because of this, which is good, cos I can
get more work done. And at least it makes me look forward to mondays! :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.42db8059259f8dc8731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> tricky to do well. If the windows are lit, there should be some indistinct
> detail within for  realism... not an issue in daylight! I could simply 
> make
> them glow, of course, but I'm not sure it would look right. I'm open to
> suggestions...

If done like a photograph you wouldn't need details within the windows, 
since that would make them just solid bright spots. Some kind of overglow 
comes into play then, though, which I guess is what you were thinking too. I 
was just thinking how light emanating outward from the windows might work 
well to shine out into the darkness to compliment those you already used 
outside. I wonder what radiosity would do if you replaced the window 
openings with brightly colored boxes?

> I had thought that this time of night might well be after lights-out, and
> these lamps are like streetlamps.

Yep, that makes sense. Then I think it might need lights out on the rock 
someplace and illuminating the buildings from a distance rather than 
directly at the walls. And then that means parking lots, roads or pathways 
could be needed. Problematic when it begins to get more complicated like 
that.

>> What's the render-time? And on what kind of computer? Is a final render
>> going to get into days instead of hours or something?
> at least 266MHz and 256MB RAM... I think. The current version of the scene
> takes over four days to render with everything switched on at 1280x1024,

Yow. Yeah, that's an aging machine there.  ; )

My desktop Dell is an Intel 3GHz, not amazingly fast still, and I haven't 
upgraded the memory so it only has 512MB. Since it's mostly idle I'm willing 
to render this for you, if you ever want, just ask. I mainly use my Dell 
notebook and just network the two since it's so mobile, so I became most 
accustomed to it since getting my first one several years ago.

I like to see test renders one after another in rapid succession, but sure 
does slow things down when "test" means all the bells and whistles are added 
to the scene, especially with an image size big enough to see it all 
accurately. One of those personality characteristics known as patience, that 
varies a great deal in everyone, really makes a difference in how that goes 
(mine wavers a lot).
: )
Hopefully you'll be able to keep chugging along on this project between 
lunch breaks. Gee, and I hope you don't get into trouble for using office 
equipment in a non-official way!

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> wrote:
> I
> was just thinking how light emanating outward from the windows might work
> well to shine out into the darkness to compliment those you already used
> outside. I wonder what radiosity would do if you replaced the window
> openings with brightly colored boxes?
Nothing, probably. It might raise the level of illumination on the boulder
slightly. The windows are quite deep-set within the walls, so light from
the windows can't spill onto the buildings much.

> > I had thought that this time of night might well be after lights-out, and
> > these lamps are like streetlamps.
> Yep, that makes sense. Then I think it might need lights out on the rock
> someplace and illuminating the buildings from a distance rather than
> directly at the walls. And then that means parking lots, roads or pathways
> could be needed.
Not a chance! My rock stays untouched by the blights of civilization! :-) I
want to preserve the idea that the inhabitants of the building don't visit
the boulder.

> Yow. Yeah, that's an aging machine there.  ; )
I may have to take it outside and shoot it sometime soon.

> Since it's mostly idle I'm willing
> to render this for you, if you ever want, just ask.
Thanks for the offer. Most of my test renders at the moment are testing
light levels so I only have to wait half an hour or so for useful results.
I'm happy with all the fine detail now so I only turn those on for big
tests. The main bottleneck is the boulder - the isosurface is a
four-component blob with two layered pigment functions - so I leave that
out if I can.

> does slow things down when "test" means all the bells and whistles are added
> to the scene, especially with an image size big enough to see it all
> accurately. One of those personality characteristics known as patience, that
> varies a great deal in everyone, really makes a difference in how that goes
POV-Ray can be a good counterpoint to an evening in front of the TV (I use a
laptop at home). Makes tests of ~30mins more bearable. I've also developed
a habit of zooming in on detail and rendering at small resolutions for
tests.

> Gee, and I hope you don't get into trouble for using office
> equipment in a non-official way!
Most of the work is done at home. I only use the office for over-nighters.
Anyway, nobody really cares around here - such are the advantages of
academia...

Bill

PS heres another test - early dawn light this time. I think I'll do
full-size versions of all three lighting scenarios in the end.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dawn_test.jpg' (87 KB)

Preview of image 'dawn_test.jpg'