 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This morning I was testing out the recent changes that clipka made to
irridescence and suddenly I was out in a warm spring meadow blowing soap
bubbles... Okay, obviously it's just the Japan_blossom probe reflected in some
spherical blob components with a bit of focal blur.
Nice irid improvement over 3.6 Christoph, thanks!
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'air_bubbles5.jpg' (500 KB)
Preview of image 'air_bubbles5.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Robert McGregor wrote:
> Nice irid improvement over 3.6 Christoph, thanks!
looks great ... did you also render with 3.6
and/or without irid for comparison?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Awesome Rolex!
It's made via Photoshop, from an actual photo. I can see a building in
the reflection of the main bubble, as well as a person with a pole...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfr de> wrote:
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> > Nice irid improvement over 3.6 Christoph, thanks!
>
> looks great ... did you also render with 3.6
> and/or without irid for comparison?
Thanks Christian. For comparision, here's the same scene rendered in 3.7 RC5
with the irid block commented out in the finish. After looking at this one it
seems I may have overdone the previous irid a bit; I may need to tone it down a
bit for more realism.
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'soap_bubbles_no_irid.jpg' (436 KB)
Preview of image 'soap_bubbles_no_irid.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In a few of my commercial works that I rendered with 3.5 and 3.6 I really had to
struggle with irid textures to make them "seem to work." It was such a pain in
the ass - I kept asking myself, "What am I doing wrong?" It's nice to see that
it was just a bug after all.
Here's the exact same scene as rendered in 3.6. Notice the weird iridescence in
the spheres, that don't even seem to have the Fresnel reflections right...
Because 3.6 didn't support HDR/EXR the environment map is a JPEG in this case,
using ambient 1. No contest really, since IMHO everything looks WAAAAY better in
3.7 all around.
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'soap_bubbles_3.6.jpg' (561 KB)
Preview of image 'soap_bubbles_3.6.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Awesome Rolex!
>
> It's made via Photoshop, from an actual photo. I can see a building in
> the reflection of the main bubble, as well as a person with a pole...
Eh? Are you saying there's a Rolex in the environment map somwhere? Lucky
bastard!
The blobospheres are just reflecting the "Japanese Blossom" HDR probe that I got
from http://www.unparent.com/photos_probes.html and converted to EXR (and JPEG)
spherical mapping using Ive's IC.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A huge difference indeed! Hurray for 3.7 and the POV-Ray Team!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > Awesome Rolex!
> >
> > It's made via Photoshop, from an actual photo. I can see a building in
> > the reflection of the main bubble, as well as a person with a pole...
>
> Eh? Are you saying there's a Rolex in the environment map somwhere? Lucky
> bastard!
>
> The blobospheres are just reflecting the "Japanese Blossom" HDR probe that I got
> from http://www.unparent.com/photos_probes.html and converted to EXR (and JPEG)
> spherical mapping using Ive's IC.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
"Awesome Rolex" refers to a post from many years ago which was a real photo,
masquerading as CG. I'd take it as a complement. ;)
--
Tek
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.03.2012 11:18, schrieb Tek:
> "Awesome Rolex" refers to a post from many years ago which was a real photo,
> masquerading as CG. I'd take it as a complement. ;)
For the records, it should be noted that the "correct" spelling for such
occasions is "Awsome Rolex!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "Awesome Rolex" refers to a post from many years ago which was a real photo,
> masquerading as CG. I'd take it as a complement. ;)
Thanks for clearing that up Tek, I'd not seen that expression before; definitely
a new bit of slang for me!
Cheers
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
