 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm working on a scene that will (hopefully) feature numerous small
waterfalls. I'm hoping to come up with something that doesn't require
complicated media settings and 3 days to render, but I haven't come as far
as I would like. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions?
First I made a waterfall simply using a few stretched spheres with a normal
patter and some specular (center). It looks decent until you put a
background behind it (left). So now I'm expiramenting with blobs (right),
but it looks more like an icicle than a waterfall.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'waterfallattempts.jpg' (60 KB)
Preview of image 'waterfallattempts.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] hotmail com> schreef in bericht
news:web.4581b746ba211b1f9033e1160@news.povray.org...
> I'm working on a scene that will (hopefully) feature numerous small
> waterfalls. I'm hoping to come up with something that doesn't require
> complicated media settings and 3 days to render, but I haven't come as far
> as I would like. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions?
>
Difficult matter, imho. I have been experimenting with a waterfall last year
with rather unconclusive results. I used Chris Colefax's spray.inc for the
waterfall.
See: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/1434/#IncludeFiles
It is similar to your first attempt. Especially at close up, it looked
unrealistic. In the distance, it looked fairly good. I tried media too, but
that took ages to render indeed.
Still, I think that your first attempt looks best.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Imho you have to add more foam (i.e. more white) to your texture to make
it look right. You could also remove some reflection and make it less
transparent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kirk Andrews wrote:
> I'm working on a scene that will (hopefully) feature numerous small
> waterfalls. I'm hoping to come up with something that doesn't require
> complicated media settings and 3 days to render, but I haven't come as far
> as I would like. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions?
I heard that for some scenes in the new Star Wars movies, where you see
some waterfalls in the distance (from some fly-by shots on Naboo, I
think), not unlike the scene on the left in your post, what the special
effects people did was to pour salt to simulate the waterfalls instead
of doing it with CGI. So you could try to use something white and opaque
instead of trying to get a transparent, refractive, etc, water texture.
/martin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Martin Magnusson" <mmn### [at] invaliddomain> schreef in bericht
news:458296d3$1@news.povray.org...
> I heard that for some scenes in the new Star Wars movies, where you see
> some waterfalls in the distance (from some fly-by shots on Naboo, I
> think), not unlike the scene on the left in your post, what the special
> effects people did was to pour salt to simulate the waterfalls instead of
> doing it with CGI. So you could try to use something white and opaque
> instead of trying to get a transparent, refractive, etc, water texture.
>
Yes, I think that a purely water texture is a problem for a waterfall. Good
tip!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.4581b746ba211b1f9033e1160@news.povray.org...
> I'm working on a scene that will (hopefully) feature numerous small
> waterfalls. I'm hoping to come up with something that doesn't require
> complicated media settings and 3 days to render, but I haven't come as far
> as I would like. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions?
>
Kirk,
The body of water looks fine. The environment is the problem.
Three thoughts.
terrain - a natural fall, even over a ledge, will have some signs of water
scour (erosion, valley effect).
vegetation - plants like water - especially in otherwisedry places.
spray fallout - things get wet (and usually darker/more specular)
D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> but it looks more like an icicle than a waterfall.
Too smooth. Needs to be more irregular, and more foamy. You could
probably do something with an isosurface (slow) and emission media
(sloooow)...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 15-12-2006 14:37:
>> but it looks more like an icicle than a waterfall.
> Too smooth. Needs to be more irregular, and more foamy. You could
> probably do something with an isosurface (slow) and emission media
> (sloooow)...
Emissive media is not that slow, there is no shadowing to compute. Scathering
media is slow due to self shadowing computation.
Emissive media is probably not what you need in this case.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
EVERYTHING HAS A GENDER
You may not know this but many nonliving things have a gender...
A Web Page is Female, because it's always getting hit on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes on the less water-y texture. Especially if you want a photo-like look,
the water blurs into a very strong white. I think either attempt with less
translucency would fit the bill well.
-Sam Bleckley
stm 31415 (at) g mail . com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Too smooth. Needs to be more irregular, and more foamy. You could
>> probably do something with an isosurface (slow) and emission media
>> (sloooow)...
> Emissive media is not that slow, there is no shadowing to compute.
> Scathering media is slow due to self shadowing computation.
> Emissive media is probably not what you need in this case.
Erm... I actually meant to write scattering, sorry... :-S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
