just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
measure of DOF love :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cubemeadow.png' (466 KB)

Preview of image 'cubemeadow.png'

On 25-2-2013 5:36, nemesis wrote:
> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> measure of DOF love :)
>

The kind of simple image I love to see.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> measure of DOF love :)

BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cubemeadow2.jpg' (121 KB)

Preview of image 'cubemeadow2.jpg'

> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
>> measure of DOF love :)
>
> BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
> differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
> sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
>
Coincident surfaces.
Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1% 
variation of the depth will do the trick...


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> >> measure of DOF love :)
> >
> > BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
> > differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
> > sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
> >
> Coincident surfaces.
> Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
> variation of the depth will do the trick...
>
>
> Alain

you're amazing, Alain :)

half an hour on this one on 4 cores of a i5.  But i think I should've added a
bit more radiosity samples:  count 8 error_bound 1 pretrace_end .003 :p

this is the kind of scene which is difficult to create with Blender.  you could
probably do it procedurally too, but the blender's python API is horrid when
compared to the relative simplicity of doing it with povray's SDL.

plus, as age goes I should be content of being a better programmer than I'll
ever be a 3D modeller :p

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cubemeadow2.png' (455 KB)

Preview of image 'cubemeadow2.png'

Am 26.02.2013 23:47, schrieb nemesis:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
>>>> measure of DOF love :)
>>>
>>> BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
>>> differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
>>> sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
>>>
>> Coincident surfaces.
>> Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
>> variation of the depth will do the trick...
>>
>>
>> Alain
>
> you're amazing, Alain :)
>
> half an hour on this one on 4 cores of a i5.  But i think I should've added a
> bit more radiosity samples:  count 8 error_bound 1 pretrace_end .003 :p

As for rendering times, I /think/ one (rather counterintuive) trick 
might be to difference the whole bunch of flowers from each cube 
individually, i.e.

#declare AllFlowers = union {
   object { Flower transform { A } }
   object { Flower transform { B } }
   ...
}

#declare AllBlocks = union {
   difference {
     object { Block transform { A } }
     object { AllFlowers }
   }
   difference
     object { Block transform { A } }
     object { AllFlowers }
   }
   ...
}

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 26.02.2013 23:47, schrieb nemesis:
> > Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> >>> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >>>> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> >>>> measure of DOF love :)
> >>>
> >>> BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
> >>> differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
> >>> sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
> >>>
> >> Coincident surfaces.
> >> Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
> >> variation of the depth will do the trick...
> >>
> >>
> >> Alain
> >
> > you're amazing, Alain :)
> >
> > half an hour on this one on 4 cores of a i5.  But i think I should've added a
> > bit more radiosity samples:  count 8 error_bound 1 pretrace_end .003 :p
>
> As for rendering times, I /think/ one (rather counterintuive) trick
> might be to difference the whole bunch of flowers from each cube
> individually, i.e.
>
> #declare AllFlowers = union {
>    object { Flower transform { A } }
>    object { Flower transform { B } }
>    ...
> }
>
> #declare AllBlocks = union {
>    difference {
>      object { Block transform { A } }
>      object { AllFlowers }
>    }
>    difference
>      object { Block transform { A } }
>      object { AllFlowers }
>    }
>    ...
> }

that's seems rather bizarre

the problem with the first render (though it was fast) is that each cube
differentiated was added one atop the other, causing ugly overlapping.  unioning
all cubes and then differencing the union of the flowers got rid of it, at the
cost of rendertimes.  wouldn't your union of differences end up with the same
problem from the first approach?

well, I just finished another render and am calling it quits.  here's the scene
if anyone's wishing to play with it and try clipka's method. :)


BTW, in the tips and tricks about focal blur it reads like this:

The focal blur is very grainy. Can I get rid of the graininess?

Yes. Set variance to 0 (or to a very small value, like for example 1/100000) and
choose a high enough blur_samples. The rendering will probably slow down quite a
lot, but the result should be very good.


but that's not the only way:  I could achieve a very smooth focal blur with just
blur_samples 12 and confidence .8 by also adding +AM2 +A0.1 +R3 to the
antialiasing settings.  nothing mindblowing, although it does slow down a good
deal and I got a 53 min render on i5 4 cores...




/* render settings: +AM2 +A0.1 +R3 +H720 +W1280 */

#version 3.7;



#local best = 1; // turn all on
#local GI = (best | 1);
#local DOF = (best | 0);

#local DBG = 0;

#local CAD = 0;  // helpful while designing the scene
#if (CAD)
    #local loc = <1,1,-1>; // don't change here
#else
    #local loc = <1,1.3,-1>;
#end
#local look = 0; // look here
#local far = 23; // how far away is the camera from loc
#local dof = 2;  // how much dof?
#local focus = .1; // focus how far from look?  from 0 to 1


global_settings {
    assumed_gamma 1

    #if (GI)
    ambient_light 0
    radiosity { count pow(2,4) brightness 1.2 error_bound 1
    gray_threshold .5 pretrace_end #if (DBG) .03 #else .002 #end adc_bailout .1
}
    #end
}



#local tclay = texture {
    pigment { rgb .7 }
    finish { diffuse .7 ambient .1 }
}



#local twist = 7;
#macro arrange( ob, n, m, nf, mf )
    #local i = -n; #while (i<n)
    #local j = -m; #while (j<n)

        object { ob
          translate <nf*i, 0, mf*j>
          rotate y*abs(i+j)*twist // little twist
        }

    #declare j = j+1; #end
    #declare i = i+1; #end
#end
#macro arrangeb( ob, n, m, nf, mf )
    #local i = -n; #while (i<n)
    #local j = -m; #while (j<n)

        object { ob
          translate <nf*i, sin(i+j)/100, mf*j>
          rotate y*abs(i+j)*twist // little twist
        }

    #declare j = j+1; #end
    #declare i = i+1; #end
#end
#macro arrangec( ob, n, m, nf, mf, ii, jj )
    #local i = -n; #while (i<n)
    #local j = -m; #while (j<n)

      #if ((ii=i)&(jj=j))
        object { ob
          translate <nf*i, 0, mf*j>
          rotate y*abs(i+j)*twist // little twist
        }
      #end

    #declare j = j+1; #end
    #declare i = i+1; #end
#end

#macro encircle( ob, r, n )
union {
    #local i = 0; #while (i<n)

        object { ob translate z*r rotate y*i*(360/n) }

    #declare i = i+1; #end
}
#end


#local flower = merge {
encircle( box { -1,1 scale .2 translate y }, .5, 7 )
encircle( box { -1,1 scale .1 translate y }, .7, 7 )
}
#local ob3 = box { -1,1 }



// scene
union {
#local a = 5;
#local b = 5;
#local as = 2.3;
#local bs = 2.7;
    union {
        #if (DBG)
        union {arrange( difference { object{ob3} object{flower}}, a, b, as, bs
)}
        #else
        difference { union {arrange( ob3, a, b, as, bs )}
                     union {arrangeb( flower, a, b, as, bs )}}
        #end
        // two separate "flowers"
        arrangec( object{flower pigment{rgb x}}, a, b, as, bs, 0, 3 )
        arrangec( object{flower pigment{rgb y}}, a, b, as, bs, 0, -3 )
        texture{tclay}
    }
    // floor
    plane { y, -1 texture {tclay}}


// sky
  sphere { 0, 1
    pigment { rgb <.5,.6,1>}
    finish { diffuse .8 emission 2 }
    hollow
    scale 10000
  }

  translate y*5+x
}



camera {
    angle 60
    #if (CAD)
    //orthographic
    angle 50
    #end
    location loc*far

    look_at look
    #if (DOF) aperture dof blur_samples 12 confidence .8 focal_point
look+((loc*far-look)*focus) #end
    right x*image_width/image_height
}

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cubemeadow2.png' (455 KB)

Preview of image 'cubemeadow2.png'

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> >> measure of DOF love :)
> >
> > BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
> > differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
> > sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
> >
> Coincident surfaces.
> Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
> variation of the depth will do the trick...
>
>
> Alain

This might be coincident surfaces but it kinda looks like bug 183 to me. If so,
you should be able to get rid of the artifacts by setting the default texture to
tclay.

Cheers,
Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Solar Mike" <wem### [at] yahooca> wrote:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > > "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > >> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
> > >> measure of DOF love :)
> > >
> > > BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
> > > differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
> > > sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
> > >
> > Coincident surfaces.
> > Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
> > variation of the depth will do the trick...
> >
> >
> > Alain
>
> This might be coincident surfaces but it kinda looks like bug 183 to me. If so,
> you should be able to get rid of the artifacts by setting the default texture to
> tclay.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike

well, just tried it and got nothing better.  coincident surfaces it is

Post a reply to this message

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 26.02.2013 23:47, schrieb nemesis:
>>> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>>>>> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>>>> just cubes, a bit of translation and rotation, lit by pure radiosity and a good
>>>>>> measure of DOF love :)
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, didn't like the overlapping, so instead I unioned all cubes, then
>>>>> differenced from the union of the "flowers".  Takes a lot more rendertime and
>>>>> sadly leaves artifacts that don't go away, but liked it better
>>>>>
>>>> Coincident surfaces.
>>>> Did you try randomising the depth of the flowers? Just something like 1%
>>>> variation of the depth will do the trick...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alain
>>>
>>> you're amazing, Alain :)
>>>
>>> half an hour on this one on 4 cores of a i5.  But i think I should've added a
>>> bit more radiosity samples:  count 8 error_bound 1 pretrace_end .003 :p
>>
>> As for rendering times, I /think/ one (rather counterintuive) trick
>> might be to difference the whole bunch of flowers from each cube
>> individually, i.e.
>>
>> #declare AllFlowers = union {
>>     object { Flower transform { A } }
>>     object { Flower transform { B } }
>>     ...
>> }
>>
>> #declare AllBlocks = union {
>>     difference {
>>       object { Block transform { A } }
>>       object { AllFlowers }
>>     }
>>     difference
>>       object { Block transform { A } }
>>       object { AllFlowers }
>>     }
>>     ...
>> }
>
> that's seems rather bizarre
>
> the problem with the first render (though it was fast) is that each cube
> differentiated was added one atop the other, causing ugly overlapping.  unioning
> all cubes and then differencing the union of the flowers got rid of it, at the
> cost of rendertimes.  wouldn't your union of differences end up with the same
> problem from the first approach?
>
> well, I just finished another render and am calling it quits.  here's the scene
> if anyone's wishing to play with it and try clipka's method. :)
>
>
> BTW, in the tips and tricks about focal blur it reads like this:
>
> The focal blur is very grainy. Can I get rid of the graininess?
>
> Yes. Set variance to 0 (or to a very small value, like for example 1/100000) and
> choose a high enough blur_samples. The rendering will probably slow down quite a
> lot, but the result should be very good.
>
>
> but that's not the only way:  I could achieve a very smooth focal blur with just
> blur_samples 12 and confidence .8 by also adding +AM2 +A0.1 +R3 to the
> antialiasing settings.  nothing mindblowing, although it does slow down a good
> deal and I got a 53 min render on i5 4 cores...
>
It work with version 3.7. With version 3.6, antialiasing was turned off 
whenever focal blur was in use.

Post a reply to this message