 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
generator.
I get this:
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'tovolume_bowl.png' (280 KB)
Preview of image 'tovolume_bowl.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>StephenS on date 17/10/2013 2.46 wrote:
> Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
> generator.
> I get this:
>
> Stephen S
>
A very realistic hand-made pottery!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/10/13 09:54, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>>StephenS on date 17/10/2013 2.46 wrote:
>> Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
>> generator.
>> I get this:
>>
>> Stephen S
>>
> A very realistic hand-made pottery!
> Paolo
I second that opinion. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to heat up some
soup to put in it.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
> generator.
> I get this:
>
> Stephen S
Stephen, your blob technique looks less voxelized (more random) than Sam's
isosurface; very natural. Just curious, what was the render time as compared to
the isosurface?
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
> generator.
> I get this:
Scanned at:
x 504
y 200
z 420
To scan the mesh2{} and create an array...
Scan the array, create and save the blob{}...
About 2hrs with 3.8-4.3ghz
1200x800
area_light 12x12 circular, orient, jitter
Antialias = On
Sampling_Method = 1
Antialias_Threshold = 0.300
Jitter = Off
Antialias_Depth = 3
3hrs 21min
4 threads
I randomize the blob component radius 6.5 to 7.5 step sizes,
with a strength .2 blob, .008 component.
Each component is also randomly placed up to +- half a step size.
Comments welcome:
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'tovolume_bowl_a.png' (567 KB)
Preview of image 'tovolume_bowl_a.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineart com> wrote:
> "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Useing the bowl posted by Samuel Benge, and running it through my blob
> > generator.
> > I get this:
> >
> > Stephen S
>
> Stephen, your blob technique looks less voxelized (more random) than Sam's
> isosurface; very natural. Just curious, what was the render time as compared to
> the isosurface?
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
See new post with new picture.
It started as a way to look like blobbed CSG.
Randomness and overlap (blobbiness?) was a design goal.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2013 11:25 AM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Stephen, your blob technique looks less voxelized (more random) than Sam's
> isosurface; very natural. Just curious, what was the render time as compared to
> the isosurface?
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
>
>
Robert,
I think in Sam's iso example you are not seeing voxelization, but rather
his technique representing the original mesh too well. His proximity
pattern technique uses the object pattern at the base which tests
whether inside or outside the mesh. This inside/outside test happens
less mesh normals. If I pull the normals from the mesh and render it.
Then replace Sam's smoothed mesh image on the left in the comparison
image, we get something which looks pretty much like the isosurface
image on the right. See attached.
I hope to find time soon to play with these other two methods. I find
all three object->"strength" techniques interesting with different
benefits and weaknesses.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'samrendercomp.jpg' (74 KB)
Preview of image 'samrendercomp.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 11:25 AM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> > Stephen, your blob technique looks less voxelized (more random) than Sam's
> > isosurface; very natural. Just curious, what was the render time as compared to
> > the isosurface?
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > www.McGregorFineArt.com
> >
> >
> >
> Robert,
> I think in Sam's iso example you are not seeing voxelization, but rather
> his technique representing the original mesh too well. His proximity
> pattern technique uses the object pattern at the base which tests
> whether inside or outside the mesh. This inside/outside test happens
> less mesh normals. If I pull the normals from the mesh and render it.
> Then replace Sam's smoothed mesh image on the left in the comparison
> image, we get something which looks pretty much like the isosurface
> image on the right. See attached.
>
> I hope to find time soon to play with these other two methods. I find
> all three object->"strength" techniques interesting with different
> benefits and weaknesses.
> Bill P.
Ah, I see - thanks for that clarification Bill :)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
