 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sometime in the last week someone brought up the "infinity in a box" thing
again, they did it with a clear box with a reflection of 1.
The first person to try this claimed they had a problem with it disapearing to
black, but my problem has gone the other way, I get about 1 1/2 reflections
(all of which are faded) and then it fades to white.
I tried removing all of the light sources and setting the ambients higher,
etc. I even moved the camera into the box, I get a better image, but it still
seems to be a bit bright.
Changing the base color (of the transmit 1 pigment) of the box, but that
doesn't seem to effect it....
This is a diversion I really don't need, but now that I'm on it I'd like to
see it through <GRIN>
Any help would be great....
Thanks....
PHIL
---------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
'transmit 1' you say? Watch out when using it instead of 'filter'
since for reasons not entirley known to me it tends to increase
brightnesses.
Bob
Philip Bartol <phi### [at] concentric net> wrote in message
news:37df9643@news.povray.org...
> Sometime in the last week someone brought up the "infinity in a box"
thing
> again, they did it with a clear box with a reflection of 1.
>
> The first person to try this claimed they had a problem with it
disapearing to
> black, but my problem has gone the other way, I get about 1 1/2
reflections
> (all of which are faded) and then it fades to white.
>
> I tried removing all of the light sources and setting the ambients
higher,
> etc. I even moved the camera into the box, I get a better image, but
it still
> seems to be a bit bright.
>
> Changing the base color (of the transmit 1 pigment) of the box, but
that
> doesn't seem to effect it....
>
> This is a diversion I really don't need, but now that I'm on it I'd
like to
> see it through <GRIN>
>
> Any help would be great....
>
> Thanks....
>
> PHIL
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Philip Bartol wrote:
> Sometime in the last week someone brought up the "infinity in a box" thing
> again, they did it with a clear box with a reflection of 1.
>
> The first person to try this claimed they had a problem with it disapearing to
> black, but my problem has gone the other way, I get about 1 1/2 reflections
> (all of which are faded) and then it fades to white.
>
> I tried removing all of the light sources and setting the ambients higher,
> etc. I even moved the camera into the box, I get a better image, but it still
> seems to be a bit bright.
>
> Changing the base color (of the transmit 1 pigment) of the box, but that
> doesn't seem to effect it....
>
> This is a diversion I really don't need, but now that I'm on it I'd like to
> see it through <GRIN>
>
> Any help would be great....
>
> Thanks....
>
> PHIL
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
Did you put the box in an entirely black (or very close to it) setting? Because
the reflection values are added each time a ray hits the cube, anything else will
fade to a color (white in most cases) very fast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I figured it couldn't be 'finish' related at all without any
light sources present (as Philip had said he tried) so 'diffuse'
shouldn't have been happening then. Will reflection alone add up? I
have forgotten if it does or not. Just tried a face to face 2 plane
check of it and didn't see any reflection color addition.
Well it's a mystery to me, as most things are.
Bob
Kevin Wampler <kev### [at] tapestrytucsonazus> wrote in message
news:37E05045.336C673C@tapestry.tucson.az.us...
> Did you put the box in an entirely black (or very close to it)
setting? Because
> the reflection values are added each time a ray hits the cube,
anything else will
> fade to a color (white in most cases) very fast.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37E05045.336C673C@tapestry.tucson.az.us>, Kevin Wampler
<kev### [at] tapestrytucsonazus> wrote:
>Philip Bartol wrote:
>
>> Sometime in the last week someone brought up the "infinity in a box" thing
>> again, they did it with a clear box with a reflection of 1.
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>Did you put the box in an entirely black (or very close to it) setting?
> Because
>the reflection values are added each time a ray hits the cube, anything else
> will
>fade to a color (white in most cases) very fast.
This is what I found to be the case... I had a plane right below the box, set
to color Gray50 (rgb .5).... when I removed the plane I got the infinate
images fading to a black... when I put the plane back in with a almost black
color (Gray05 or rgb .05) Then I got the image I was hoping to see...
The bummer behind this is that you can't put a checkered plane or anything
under it.... this technique can't be used to put a small "cube of infinity" on
someone's desk or something....
Oh well...
PHIL
---------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sure you could (I think...) if you use the "vampire" method on the
infinity mirror box. Couldn't you?
Bob
Philip Bartol <phi### [at] concentricnet> wrote in message
news:37e12d58@news.povray.org...
> The bummer behind this is that you can't put a checkered plane or
anything
> under it.... this technique can't be used to put a small "cube of
infinity" on
> someone's desk or something....
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Philip Bartol wrote:
>
> The bummer behind this is that you can't put a checkered plane or anything
> under it.... this technique can't be used to put a small "cube of infinity" on
> someone's desk or something....
>
> Oh well...
>
> PHIL
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
Who said so? (see picture in p.b.i)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Sure you could (I think...) if you use the "vampire" method on the
> infinity mirror box. Couldn't you?
>
> Bob
Exactly :)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37e132a2@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>Sure you could (I think...) if you use the "vampire" method on the
>infinity mirror box. Couldn't you?
>
>Bob
>
>Philip Bartol <phi### [at] concentricnet> wrote in message
>news:37e12d58@news.povray.org...
>> The bummer behind this is that you can't put a checkered plane or
>anything
>> under it.... this technique can't be used to put a small "cube of
>infinity" on
>> someone's desk or something....
"Vampire" method? I'm missing something here aren't I?
PHIL
---------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Philip Bartol wrote:
>
> In article <37e132a2@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >Sure you could (I think...) if you use the "vampire" method on the
> >infinity mirror box. Couldn't you?
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >Philip Bartol <phi### [at] concentricnet> wrote in message
> >news:37e12d58@news.povray.org...
> >> The bummer behind this is that you can't put a checkered plane or
> >anything
> >> under it.... this technique can't be used to put a small "cube of
> >infinity" on
> >> someone's desk or something....
>
> "Vampire" method? I'm missing something here aren't I?
>
> PHIL
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
It's a method that was used in a series of posts a month or two ago to
make objects that didn't appear in mirors or cast weird shadow. It
basically uses bounding boxes to make the objects visible only from the
camera or the light source or the mirror. You can see an example I just
posted in p.t.s-f
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
