Some people in the office are doing scientific ray-tracing, and I think they
happened upon POV-Ray in the process.  So everyone has Gilles Tran's bottle
scene on their desktop.  Got me in the mood, so now I'm digging up some old
projects.  This one's just a shameless render-dump.  On top of that, it's not
even original.  In fact, far from it:

http://www.pbrt.org/gallery/01F12.jpg

Not that I was trying to replicate it, but was never able to get the combination
of parameters just right, so here's pretty much where it ended.  Rendering time
wasn't more than a few hours, as I recall.  Should probably ditch the ior.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dragon.jpg' (112 KB)

Preview of image 'dragon.jpg'

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Some people in the office are doing scientific ray-tracing, and I think they
> happened upon POV-Ray in the process.  So everyone has Gilles Tran's bottle
> scene on their desktop.

that's nice to know. :)

> of parameters just right, so here's pretty much where it ended.

and that's one of the most beautiful subsurface scattering I've witnessed from
povray...

> Rendering time
> wasn't more than a few hours, as I recall.

That dragon model is a damn detailed mesh.  If you did use scattering media to
emulate SSS, I happen to think that in my computer it'd take a few days. o_O

everyone on quads these days.  it makes me weep... :P

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Some people in the office are doing scientific ray-tracing, and I think they
> happened upon POV-Ray in the process.  So everyone has Gilles Tran's bottle
> scene on their desktop.  Got me in the mood, so now I'm digging up some old
> projects.  This one's just a shameless render-dump.  On top of that, it's not
> even original.  In fact, far from it:
> 
> http://www.pbrt.org/gallery/01F12.jpg
> 
> Not that I was trying to replicate it, but was never able to get the combination
> of parameters just right, so here's pretty much where it ended.  Rendering time
> wasn't more than a few hours, as I recall.  Should probably ditch the ior.
> 
>  - Ricky

No, no, don't ditch the ior! This is a beautiful image, regardless of 
the circumstances surrounding it. That material is almost opalescent...


Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> triple_r wrote:
> > Some people in the office are doing scientific ray-tracing, and I think they
> > happened upon POV-Ray in the process.  So everyone has Gilles Tran's bottle
> > scene on their desktop.  Got me in the mood, so now I'm digging up some old
> > projects.  This one's just a shameless render-dump.  On top of that, it's not
> > even original.  In fact, far from it:
> >
> > http://www.pbrt.org/gallery/01F12.jpg
> >
> > Not that I was trying to replicate it, but was never able to get the combination
> > of parameters just right, so here's pretty much where it ended.  Rendering time
> > wasn't more than a few hours, as I recall.  Should probably ditch the ior.
> >
> >  - Ricky
>
> No, no, don't ditch the ior! This is a beautiful image, regardless of
> the circumstances surrounding it. That material is almost opalescent...
>
>
> Sam

Not the SSS, but the ior.  Without it you get something like this:

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.4729e37fb6546248731f01d10%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.472
9e37fb6546248731f01d10%40news.povray.org%3E

Where the edges may show straight through.  With it, you might get total
internal reflection and some odd artifacts that go with it.  No-win.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> No, no, don't ditch the ior! This is a beautiful image, regardless of
> the circumstances surrounding it. That material is almost opalescent...
>
>
> Sam

Got sick of that silky-smooth POV-look when I saw your fine rendering, so here's
a quick Gimping of the image.  Greatly exaggerated, but if you go back and forth
between the two, you realize just how far on both ends of the spectrum both
images are.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'blurred.jpg' (102 KB)

Preview of image 'blurred.jpg'

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Some people in the office are doing scientific ray-tracing, and I think they
> happened upon POV-Ray in the process.  So everyone has Gilles Tran's bottle
> scene on their desktop.  Got me in the mood, so now I'm digging up some old
> projects.  This one's just a shameless render-dump.  On top of that, it's not
> even original.  In fact, far from it:
>
> http://www.pbrt.org/gallery/01F12.jpg
>
> Not that I was trying to replicate it, but was never able to get the combination
> of parameters just right, so here's pretty much where it ended.  Rendering time
> wasn't more than a few hours, as I recall.  Should probably ditch the ior.
>
>  - Ricky

Actually I find yours much more interesting in many respects.  The offset
viewing angle. The background is infinitely more interesting than the flat
grey. And the base, however minor of a scene element it may seem, is much nicer
with its own sub surface scattering.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On top of that, it's not even original.  In fact, far from it:
>
> http://www.pbrt.org/gallery/01F12.jpg
>

I prefer your version, mainly because of the lighting.  There's something to be
said for backlighting and shadows...

--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> 
> Got sick of that silky-smooth POV-look when I saw your fine rendering, so here's
> a quick Gimping of the image.  Greatly exaggerated, but if you go back and forth
> between the two, you realize just how far on both ends of the spectrum both
> images are.

That looks very nice! I can easily see the differences between the two.

Some POV purists out there won't condone the use of an external 
application though ;)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> No, no, don't ditch the ior! This is a beautiful image, regardless of
>> the circumstances surrounding it. That material is almost opalescent...
>>
>> Sam
> 
> Not the SSS, but the ior.  Without it you get something like this:
> 
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.4729e37fb6546248731f01d10%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.472
> 9e37fb6546248731f01d10%40news.povray.org%3E

I knew what you meant, and I think it's a mistake to exclude the non-air 
index of refraction. The post you showed me (Bill's) looks like wax, 
though I won't claim to be innocent of producing such an effect. Your 
render looks like fine glass or opal. To remove the 1+ ior from the 
equation would be to reduce the quality of this fine render.

> Where the edges may show straight through.  With it, you might get total
> internal reflection and some odd artifacts that go with it.  No-win.

I disagree. The ior looks much more realistic! And the long render time 
involved? You got through this render, didn't you? ;)

Your image is now on my desktop :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> render looks like fine glass or opal. To remove the 1+ ior from the
> equation would be to reduce the quality of this fine render.

Whether or not that particular image is interesting or not, the original version
I referenced also has the appearance of porcelain without any artifacts (if you
can call them that).  It certainly doesn't just use scattering media, even if
the algorithm is some subset of media effects -- but then I could be dead
wrong.

> I disagree. The ior looks much more realistic! And the long render time
> involved? You got through this render, didn't you? ;)



> Your image is now on my desktop :)

What a compliment!  The original, no doubt, as any purist wouldn't stand for
Gimping.  Not that I disagree, it's just that not all purists have the time to
rewrite Gimp in POV-Ray just so they don't have to confess there was cheating
involved.  Sigh.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message