 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=b6rg_=22Yadgar=22_Bleimann?= <yaz### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> Awesome (like most of your POV-Ray images)! If there wasn't that girl, I
> would say this forest needs a lynx on the prowl!
>
> Did you ever model a lynx?
I would love to create a scene with a lynx, but I`m not good at modelling.
There is no lynx to buy from DAZ or Poser either.
Of course you could buy a model from Turbosquid
(https://www.turbosquid.com/de/3d-models/eurasian-lynx-fur-3d-model/895260), but
79 $ is too much for me.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote on 13/11/2020 17:32:
> Hi,
>
> There is something fascinating about bluebell woods. They exist in Great
> Britain, Ireland, Belgium and Germany (only two very small spots). Bluebells are
> an indicator for ancient woodlands, so bluebell woods are likely to date back to
> at least 1600 (from Wikipedia).
>
[...]
>
> Happy rendering,
> Norbert
>
A magnificent scenery, in which it would be nice to immerse yourself,
full of details and with a certain harmony.
A beautiful image!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of Henyey-Greenstein
scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
> texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
> leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
> is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
> fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of Henyey-Greenstein
> scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
>
Instead of double_illuminate, you should us the back side illumination.
Starting with version 3.7, it's done by using two values after diffuse.
It gives you much more control.
Example : diffuse 0.6 0.3
Just remember that the two values should add to less than 1.
If you use double_illuminate with a diffuse value of 0.6, what you
effectively get is this : diffuse 0.6 0.6
This is not realistic at all.
You can also add some filter to the pigment. Keep that pretty low.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 19/11/2020 om 19:40 schreef Alain Martel:
>> What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
>> texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
>> leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
>> is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
>> fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of
>> Henyey-Greenstein scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
>>
>
> Instead of double_illuminate, you should us the back side illumination.
> Starting with version 3.7, it's done by using two values after diffuse.
> It gives you much more control.
> Example : diffuse 0.6 0.3
> Just remember that the two values should add to less than 1.
>
> If you use double_illuminate with a diffuse value of 0.6, what you
> effectively get is this : diffuse 0.6 0.6
> This is not realistic at all.
>
> You can also add some filter to the pigment. Keep that pretty low.
>
Of course! and that is what I meant: I use backside illumination in my
scenes, and misspelled it into double_illuminate here... ;-/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Instead of double_illuminate, you should us the back side illumination.
> Starting with version 3.7, it's done by using two values after diffuse.
> It gives you much more control.
> Example : diffuse 0.6 0.3
> Just remember that the two values should add to less than 1.
Ah! Another 'new' feature that I didn't notice! And as luck would have it I'm
idly tinkering with something that might benefit from its usage.
Ta
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> So I collected much more than 1000 trees (and many more plants too) during the
> last 20 years - whereever possible.
Interesting. Presumably you have some kind of sorting system so you can find
what you need? I collect some things, but not much in POV-Ray - I enjoy the
challenge of doing as much as possible from scratch (or at least with my own
creations). Unfortunately this means many projects fall by the wayside.
> Luckily there are sites as https://archive3d.net/?tag=Tree to provide good
> meshes for free.
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain Martel <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> > What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
> > texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
> > leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
> > is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
> > fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of Henyey-Greenstein
> > scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
> >
>
> Instead of double_illuminate, you should us the back side illumination.
> Starting with version 3.7, it's done by using two values after diffuse.
> It gives you much more control.
> Example : diffuse 0.6 0.3
> Just remember that the two values should add to less than 1.
>
> If you use double_illuminate with a diffuse value of 0.6, what you
> effectively get is this : diffuse 0.6 0.6
> This is not realistic at all.
>
> You can also add some filter to the pigment. Keep that pretty low.
I wasn't aware of this - many thanks, Alain!
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
> texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
> leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
> is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
> fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of Henyey-Greenstein
> scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
>
> --
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
in my last images I divide them in a diffuse and a media part. It doubles the
render times, but there is no way to reproduce the quality when doing it
combined.
I'm not totally sure, but some related issues seem to evaporate by this approach
too...
The way I do the media render is to simply multiply the diffuse, specular, phong
and reflection values with zero (I hate this procedure by the way).
And wow, you are really in the media types - fantastic!
I simply tested the media types and used the best looking - here's my setup
#version 3.7;
global_settings {
assumed_gamma 1
max_trace_level 5
noise_generator 2
}
#include "stdinc.inc"
light_source {
<0,0,95131>,
srgb 2.5
area_light <1000,0,0>, <0,1000,0> 5,5 adaptive 0 jitter circular orient
rotate <-52,160,0>
}
box {
<-35,-0.8,-80>, <35,90,30>
hollow
material {
texture {
pigment {color rgbt 1}
}
interior {
media {
scattering {3, 0.005}
intervals 1
samples 50
}
}
}
}
I mostly use standard finishes (65 meshes used in this image, perhaps 250
textures - no way to adapt them all individually - so "finish {specular 0.3
roughness 0.0003 diffuse 0.6 ambient 0}" has to do it...
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 21/11/2020 om 22:54 schreef Norbert Kern:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> What I always find difficult to emulate is the light combined with the
>> texture/transparency of the leaves. I have your technique about the
>> leaves (faked translucency mapping) and also use double_illuminate. It
>> is the atmospheric media which is often difficult to do. Isotropy is
>> fairly straightforward, but I often prefer the use of Henyey-Greenstein
>> scattering withou too extreme eccentricity.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> in my last images I divide them in a diffuse and a media part. It doubles the
> render times, but there is no way to reproduce the quality when doing it
> combined.
>
> I'm not totally sure, but some related issues seem to evaporate by this approach
> too...
> The way I do the media render is to simply multiply the diffuse, specular, phong
> and reflection values with zero (I hate this procedure by the way).
>
Interesting. So, if I understand you correctly, you combine two separate
renders, one without media but with fullfledged finish, and one with the
media but with zeroed finish. Forgive me, I think you have already
explained this in the past, but I cannot find the place.
>
> And wow, you are really in the media types - fantastic!
> I simply tested the media types and used the best looking - here's my setup
The media type used depends heavily imo of the light position in the
scene and the effect wanted. Sometimes, isotropic media is just fine,
sometimes you need a more sophisticated approach.
>
>
> #version 3.7;
>
> global_settings {
> assumed_gamma 1
> max_trace_level 5
> noise_generator 2
> }
>
> #include "stdinc.inc"
>
> light_source {
> <0,0,95131>,
> srgb 2.5
> area_light <1000,0,0>, <0,1000,0> 5,5 adaptive 0 jitter circular orient
> rotate <-52,160,0>
> }
>
> box {
> <-35,-0.8,-80>, <35,90,30>
> hollow
> material {
> texture {
> pigment {color rgbt 1}
> }
> interior {
> media {
> scattering {3, 0.005}
> intervals 1
> samples 50
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> I mostly use standard finishes (65 meshes used in this image, perhaps 250
> textures - no way to adapt them all individually - so "finish {specular 0.3
> roughness 0.0003 diffuse 0.6 ambient 0}" has to do it...
>
Thanks indeed. I shall play with this.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
