 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A simple isosurface microphone thing with radiosity and focal blur. Render time
86 hour.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'gaf_microphone_final.jpg' (143 KB)
Preview of image 'gaf_microphone_final.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gaf wrote:
> A simple isosurface microphone thing
You know you've been raytracing too long when your
*simple* things render in 86 hours.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfr de> wrote:
> Gaf wrote:
>
> > A simple isosurface microphone thing
>
> You know you've been raytracing too long when your
> *simple* things render in 86 hours.
My computer goes slowly, and my knowledge is not enough... yet :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gaf" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> A simple isosurface microphone thing with radiosity and focal blur. Render time
> 86 hour.
Congrats on the beautiful wire mesh; looks just like the real thing.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My computer goes slowly, and my knowledge is not enough... yet :-)
If that is the case I can't wait to see what you can do when you master the
program. This is impressive as it is.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:03:46 EDT, "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet>
wrote:
>"Gaf" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> A simple isosurface microphone thing with radiosity and focal blur. Render time
>> 86 hour.
>
>Congrats on the beautiful wire mesh; looks just like the real thing.
>
>KW
>
>
>
And more congratulations for not overdoing the focal blur !!!!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gaf" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> A simple isosurface microphone thing with radiosity and focal blur. Render time
> 86 hour.
Not bad (well, the render time *is* :))
But the real things have a slightly different mesh: Instead of one direction
converging at the poles, it is centered around a different axis. If you know
what I mean. So when seen from the top, it looks like a (more or less) perfect
square grid.
Why not use sphere sweeps? I fancy they'd be faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gaf wrote:
> A simple isosurface microphone thing with radiosity and focal blur. Render time
> 86 hour.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That is a beautiful render, technically clever, and impressive in its
execution. Images related to sound, of a sound detection device lets
say, can open up subtle conceptual possibities.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Gaf wrote:
>
>> A simple isosurface microphone thing
>
> You know you've been raytracing too long when your
> *simple* things render in 86 hours.
You know you haven't been raytracing enough, when your simple things
take 86 hours to render ;p.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Not bad (well, the render time *is* :))
>
> But the real things have a slightly different mesh: Instead of one direction
> converging at the poles, it is centered around a different axis. If you know
> what I mean. So when seen from the top, it looks like a (more or less) perfect
> square grid.
Yes, now that you mention it, I think you're right. I wonder how they form the
wire mesh into a ball (or hemisphere, as the case may be, which is probably
easier) without a visible 'pole' showing? If just a hemisphere, I guess you
could simply press the pre-made mesh into a bowl-shaped form or mold, and
accept the slight distortion (?)
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
