 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hello,
i'm sorta uncomfortable asking this question because i figure
it must be a faq somewhere, but i couldn't find it so here goes:
i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
visible. how do i do that? is that a "photon" thing? i've got
the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
need the light rays here soon.
my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
catches it, but thats just a guess.
thank you, miker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MR wrote:
> i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
> visible. how do i do that? is that a "photon" thing? i've got
> the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
> need the light rays here soon.
>
> my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
> catches it, but thats just a guess.
That's the idea, but you have to use a scattering media instead of fog.
IIRC there is an example for this room-with-a-window-and-visible-sunrays
type of scene with standart POV distibution. Look in the "media" directory.
Hope this helps,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MR wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> i'm sorta uncomfortable asking this question because i figure
> it must be a faq somewhere, but i couldn't find it so here goes:
>
> i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
> visible. how do i do that? is that a "photon" thing? i've got
> the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
> need the light rays here soon.
>
> my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
> catches it, but thats just a guess.
>
Fog won't help, scattering media is the appropriate method. Look at the
media sample scenes coming with povray to get an idea. With
megapov/povray 3.5 'method 3' will probably lead to faster and better
results.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thanks guys,
i'm gonna take a look at the media scene files right now.
and then i'll check the pov docs for scattering media.
thanks again, miker
"MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote in message news:3bd803ba@news.povray.org...
> hello,
>
> i'm sorta uncomfortable asking this question because i figure
> it must be a faq somewhere, but i couldn't find it so here goes:
>
> i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
> visible. how do i do that? is that a "photon" thing? i've got
> the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
> need the light rays here soon.
>
> my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
> catches it, but thats just a guess.
>
> thank you, miker
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote in message news:3bd83f29@news.povray.org...
> thanks guys,
>
> i'm gonna take a look at the media scene files right now.
> and then i'll check the pov docs for scattering media.
>
> thanks again, miker
>
Be afraid, be very afraid - scattering media in 3.1 is 'orrible and very slow,
or, with higher quality settings, ok and very very slow. It's one of the best
reasons for trading up to megapov.
I know others have said this in this thread, but scattering media in 3.1 really
needs a big skull and crossbones on it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
: Be afraid, be very afraid - scattering media in 3.1 is 'orrible and very slow,
: or, with higher quality settings, ok and very very slow. It's one of the best
: reasons for trading up to megapov.
: I know others have said this in this thread, but scattering media in 3.1 really
: needs a big skull and crossbones on it.
Oh, then these type of images would not be possible:
http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-12-31/strike.jpg
That image takes *advantage* of the graininess of media method 1 (although
it wasn't known as "method 1" back then). Doing the same with the current
method 3 would be, if not completely impossible, at least very difficult and
probably slower (perhaps a lot slower).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3bd92d1e@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh, then these type of images would not be possible:
>
> http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-12-31/strike.jpg
>
> That image takes *advantage* of the graininess of media method 1 (although
> it wasn't known as "method 1" back then). Doing the same with the current
> method 3 would be, if not completely impossible, at least very difficult and
> probably slower (perhaps a lot slower).
>
Hmm, well I won't dispute the basic point - the graininess could be made to work
to your advantage - but I'm not convinced that it adds anything to this picture,
it just doesn't detract from it... well, not much. Should smoke really be
grainy?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> Should smoke really be grainy?
If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3BD97011.44D60AC5@pacbell.net...
>
> If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
> you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
> of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
> that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?
>
Heh - I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it is certainly true that by
"awsum rolex" we generally mean "looks like a photograph", not "looks like
reality".
Probably one for o-t, but does the phrase "looks like reality" have any
verifiable meaning?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
>
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:3BD97011.44D60AC5@pacbell.net...
> >
> > If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
> > you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
> > of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
> > that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?
> >
>
> Heh - I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it is certainly true that by
> "awsum rolex" we generally mean "looks like a photograph", not "looks like
> reality".
>
> Probably one for o-t, but does the phrase "looks like reality" have any
> verifiable meaning?
That's too deep for me. C'mon - get real, Tom!
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
