 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi. I posted the Bryce to POV image in .images and I was wondering if
anyone has a suggestion on how to make the moon's edges lighter, yet not
damaging the texture. Everything I have tried so far has only led to
making the moon too white. Please help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does anyone plan on helping me here?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry I have no idea.
However, I like guesswork, so how about this:
Increase/Decrease diffusion
Increase/Decrease ambience
and
play with brilliance
Just guesses
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did you check the moon texture I posted? I mentioned it in a reply to the
original Bryce post. Basically, try a brilliance of ~0.3
Margus
TonyB wrote in message <372C8619.E5F0AD5C@panama.phoenix.net>...
>Does anyone plan on helping me here?
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Did you check the moon texture I posted? I mentioned it in a reply to the
> original Bryce post. Basically, try a brilliance of ~0.3
Yes, I saw it. Very nice. What I didn't like was how the bump-map dissapears
where no light hits the object.
I've never used brilliance. I'll go check it out. Thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You must have at least some light on all parts of a normal or it will not
show. Thought maybe the tilde 0.3 for the 'brilliance' was a negative
number, guess Margus uses a tilde the same way I do, short for
approximately. Well, if you want an interesting effect when using
brilliance now that you're willing to try it out anyway, use a small
negative number instead. 'brilliance -0.3' would make the edges, or
light/shadow terminator, of an object brighten instead of darken. Only
trouble with it is that it's difficult to control.
TonyB wrote:
>
> > Did you check the moon texture I posted? I mentioned it in a reply to the
> > original Bryce post. Basically, try a brilliance of ~0.3
>
> Yes, I saw it. Very nice. What I didn't like was how the bump-map dissapears
> where no light hits the object.
>
> I've never used brilliance. I'll go check it out. Thanks.
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You must have at least some light on all parts of a normal or it will not
> show. Thought maybe the tilde 0.3 for the 'brilliance' was a negative
> number, guess Margus uses a tilde the same way I do, short for
> approximately.
I didn't know that's what that thingy (~) was called. I've always called that
(pronounce like the yn in Grand Canyon).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 1999 23:01:15 -0400, TonyB <ben### [at] panama phoenixnet> wrote:
>> You must have at least some light on all parts of a normal or it will not
>> show. Thought maybe the tilde 0.3 for the 'brilliance' was a negative
>> number, guess Margus uses a tilde the same way I do, short for
>> approximately.
>
>I didn't know that's what that thingy (~) was called. I've always called that
>(pronounce like the yn in Grand Canyon).
Odd... I learned that the squiggle used atop an n in Spanish is called a tilde.
WWWebster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) agrees with me, for English,
and Babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com) doesn't translate it.
(It doesn't translate vi'rgula the other way, either.) I had always called
the symbol by itself (as used in C programming and web addresses) a tilde, too,
but always with some reservations. WWWebster tells me that I need not have
worried, as that is sense 2 of the definition.
The mark you posted, assuming I saw the same thing you saw (an a with a ' over
it) is an acute accent. The mark that goes the other way (i.e. `) is a grave
accent.While I'm at it, the .. is called either a diaeresis or an umlaut,
depending on usage. All those marks, and others like the single dot, the bar,
the circumflex, and the u-shaped-thingy that marks a short vowel, are called
diacritics, or diacritical marks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The mark you posted, assuming I saw the same thing you saw (an a with a ' over
> it) is an acute accent. The mark that goes the other way (i.e. `) is a grave
> accent.While I'm at it, the .. is called either a diaeresis or an umlaut,
> depending on usage. All those marks, and others like the single dot, the bar,
> the circumflex, and the u-shaped-thingy that marks a short vowel, are called
> diacritics, or diacritical marks.
only real use in spanish is to force the pronunciation of the letter U after the
--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB
As I was walking to St. Ives,
I met a man with 7 wives.
Each wife had 7 sacks.
Each sack had 7 cats.
Each cat had 7 kits.
How many were going to St. Ives?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
