Hi all,

Here's my second image. It's basic, simple stuff to most of you probably;
four colored glass spheres. Nothing you all haven't seen before. But for
me it was an exercise and study in the following:

- photons
- refraction/reflection
- soft shadows
- fog

I would like to thank Mike Williams, St and Marc Jacquier for responding so
quickly to my earlier questions and ofcourse to all of you contributing to
the POV-Ray newsgroups. I still have a lot to learn and read, but it's all
been fun so far :)

BTW, anyone knows how I can get a better softer shadow. I think it's too
pixelated.

Have a fine day,
NumbC

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'glassspheres_002.jpg' (73 KB)

Preview of image 'glassspheres_002.jpg'

Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.
A message concerning the artifacts is posted in povray.beta-test.

Best regards, NumbC

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'glassspheres_002_3_7.jpg' (92 KB)

Preview of image 'glassspheres_002_3_7.jpg'

NumbC wrote:
> Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.

Have you changed anything on the source? This version has better 
contrast, I think.

Bonsai

-- 
<--------------------------->
    ___ __ __  _ ___ ___  _
   | _ )  \  \( )  _) _ )( )
   | _ \() |\ \ |\ \/ _ \| |
   |___/__/_)\__)___)/ \_)_)

        www.b0n541.net
<--------------------------->

Post a reply to this message

Bonsai <bon### [at] b0n541net> wrote:
> NumbC wrote:
> > Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.
>
> Have you changed anything on the source? This version has better
> contrast, I think.

Nope, I haven't changed a thing. Exactly the same source-code.

Post a reply to this message

NumbC wrote:
> Bonsai <bon### [at] b0n541net> wrote:
> 
>>NumbC wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.
>>
>>Have you changed anything on the source? This version has better
>>contrast, I think.
> 
> 
> Nope, I haven't changed a thing. Exactly the same source-code.
> 

IIRC 3.7 still doesn't have gamma working, which could be a reason for 
the difference. Nice picture, btw.

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

NumbC wrote:
> Bonsai <bon### [at] b0n541net> wrote:
> 
>>NumbC wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.
>>
>>Have you changed anything on the source? This version has better
>>contrast, I think.
> 
> 
> Nope, I haven't changed a thing. Exactly the same source-code.
> 

On the arealight shadows: Yes, there does seem to be excessive banding 
in the shadows compared to the 3.6 image. I'm still debating whether or 
not its becuase of the gamma problems, or if its still an issue with the 
shadows (I noticed this banding on a very early beta of 3.7).

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

"NumbC" <ann### [at] philipscom> wrote in message 
news:web.430ee94e7349545b726bd13c0@news.povray.org...

> Here's the POV-Ray 3.7 beta 8 version of the same image.


    That's nice. But what happens if you turn 'phong' off?

     ~Steve~

>
> Best regards, NumbC

Post a reply to this message

NumbC nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-08-26 05:33:
> Hi all,
> 
> Here's my second image. It's basic, simple stuff to most of you probably;
> four colored glass spheres. Nothing you all haven't seen before. But for
> me it was an exercise and study in the following:
> 
> - photons
> - refraction/reflection
> - soft shadows
> - fog
> 
> I would like to thank Mike Williams, St and Marc Jacquier for responding so
> quickly to my earlier questions and ofcourse to all of you contributing to
> the POV-Ray newsgroups. I still have a lot to learn and read, but it's all
> been fun so far :)
> 
> BTW, anyone knows how I can get a better softer shadow. I think it's too
> pixelated.
> 
> Have a fine day,
> NumbC
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
To get softer shadows: increase the density of the area_light and use adaptive 0
(increase if you 
get artefacts)
When using adaptive, the best values are powers of 2 + 1. This is due to the adaptive
subdivision 
that try to split the intervals in 2 when needed.
I comonly use 17*17 and 33*33 and you can easily go higher (65*65, 129*129, 257*257).
When using 
high values, jitter become more and more useless.
The 4*4 default give you heavy banding and require jitter to get anything acceptable.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

Hey, I like it. It's preeeety. :-)

Post a reply to this message