Here's a development picture from my forthcoming (hopefully!) IRTC entry for
this round. I was going to hold off posting anything till I'd finished it,
but this is such a strange bit of modelling I felt I had to share it.

It is, of course, DAZ's Aiko, but in spectral form. I think I've been
incredibly cunning with this image, but this could be wishful thinking and
maybe many of you will see what I've done at a single glance. Anyway, I'm
going to be mysterious and not explain how this was made until I come to
write the image description for the competition.

I need to make some changes. The pose is a bit flat and will be improved. I
want the light to be slightly bluer, and the coruscating patterns a little
sharper. I may well use different hair for the final - her features are
somewhat obscured. And finally, there are some white pixel-sized artifacts
dotted around the model, which I don't think I can do anything about.
Making the ghost brighter will help mask them; failing that, it'll be a
post-process to remove them which is of course against The Rules.

Feedback appreciated!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ghostgirl.jpg' (52 KB)

Preview of image 'ghostgirl.jpg'

Concerning the artifacts, did you try to increase the max_trace_level?

About her appearence in general, how about making her surface fully
transparent and filling her with emitting media instead? This would ofc
increase the render time but i guess it would look better. Control the
density to obtain a similar pattern!

Regards Roman

Post a reply to this message

"Roman Reiner" <lim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Concerning the artifacts, did you try to increase the max_trace_level?
Yes, with no joy. I believe the spots are caused by gaps in the mesh which
cause the media to appear infinitely deep at those points, but there's
little I can do about it. They look similar to the coincident surface
artifact, but manifest themselves much more rarely, seemingly at random
locations depending on render resolution, etc.

> About her appearence in general, how about making her surface fully
> transparent and filling her with emitting media instead?
I've tried that, and although the results are interesting, I prefer this
'glowing outline' look! :-) I have some more experiments in mind, however.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Roman Reiner" <lim### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > Concerning the artifacts, did you try to increase the max_trace_level?
> Yes, with no joy. I believe the spots are caused by gaps in the mesh which
> cause the media to appear infinitely deep at those points, but there's
> little I can do about it. They look similar to the coincident surface
> artifact, but manifest themselves much more rarely, seemingly at random
> locations depending on render resolution, etc.
>

Have you tried to subdivide the mesh in Poseray and change the weld
tolerance?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> Have you tried to subdivide the mesh in Poseray and change the weld
> tolerance?
No... I'll give it a go, although the Aiko3 mesh is pretty hi-res already!
Might make my PC chug a little. (Tough, that's what it's there for) :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> > Have you tried to subdivide the mesh in Poseray and change the weld
> > tolerance?
> No... I'll give it a go, although the Aiko3 mesh is pretty hi-res already!
> Might make my PC chug a little. (Tough, that's what it's there for) :)
>
> Bill


emitting media and see if there are any leaks. Then decrease the weld
tolerance to close them up.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Looks very pretty, though. I think I can imagine how you did the light
outline, because I by myself wrote a scene in pov-ray some thime ago where
I experimented with "x-rays", and that looked similar. I don't know how to
remove the bright pixel dots, because I didn't have this problem. But a
thing that you could do is changing the pose of the left hand a bit,
because it looks strangely twisted. (Ouch!) But all in all, good work :)

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Mild nudity? She's completely transparent! LOL. ;-)

Very pretty though... The middle part doesn't look quite "right". I 
think it's the two legs overlapping and making that part extra bright. 
Sure, that's physically correct; doesn't mean it will _look_ right...

Post a reply to this message

Right, here's an opaque version. I think this looks better - the body parts
visible through the previous version *were* a little confusing. I'm not
sure if this looks as 'ghostly', though... I think I'll have to see it in
context! Next stop, pose.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ghostgirl2.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'ghostgirl2.jpg'

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.450f0f35d89b4a7afb2e2dd30@news.povray.org...
> Right, here's an opaque version. I think this looks better - the body 
> parts
> visible through the previous version *were* a little confusing. I'm not
> sure if this looks as 'ghostly', though... I think I'll have to see it in
> context! Next stop, pose.
>
Yes, in a sense this looks better. I have some concern about the hair 
though, especially in this latest image, as it show too much the 'shell' it 
is in fact. Being bald would almost look better, but that would change 
totally the context.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message