 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As regards the brick wall, I have gone for a simple box with a more complex
texture.
I have also made a piece of "paper" from a bicubic_patch, I have used rand for
the first time to wrinkle the paper and place it randomly with a while loop. It
took some time, but I have found rand really helpful.
For my light in the lamp I have used a frame. This is causing far too harsh
shadows, even with radiosity. I don't want to use an area light if possible, are
there any other options?
About the macros used to build bricks, how do they work? I have read the files
but don't really understand them. Also I keep reading posts where people say to
use macros to build a mesh, but I have no idea of how to do this.
D103
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.01.2011 03:20, schrieb D103:
> For my light in the lamp I have used a frame. This is causing far too harsh
> shadows, even with radiosity. I don't want to use an area light if possible, are
> there any other options?
Don't be afraid of area lights.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For my light in the lamp I have used a frame. This is causing far too
harsh
> shadows, even with radiosity. I don't want to use an area light if
possible, are
> there any other options?
Give the lamp shade no_shadow and use two spot lights (one up and one
down) with soft edges that more or less match the shade. Also use a
basic dim light source to simulate the light that filters through the shade.
But as clipka said, don't be afraid of area lights. Although this trick
can help you avoid lots of area light calculations from the lamp shade,
soft shadowing on all of your objects will look way better than hard
shadows, and if you use 'adaptive' properly, it really won't hurt your
render times that much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As regards the brick wall, I have gone for a simple box with a more complex
> texture.
>
> I have also made a piece of "paper" from a bicubic_patch, I have used rand for
> the first time to wrinkle the paper and place it randomly with a while loop. It
> took some time, but I have found rand really helpful.
>
> For my light in the lamp I have used a frame. This is causing far too harsh
> shadows, even with radiosity. I don't want to use an area light if possible, are
> there any other options?
>
> About the macros used to build bricks, how do they work? I have read the files
> but don't really understand them. Also I keep reading posts where people say to
> use macros to build a mesh, but I have no idea of how to do this.
>
> D103
>
>
Why don't use area_light?
An area_light ,even with a high density, with the adaptive option can be
relatively fast.
Try this, rather extreme, one:
light_source{<40, 80, -40> rgb 1 area_light 8*x, 8*z, 257, 257 adaptive
0 circular orient}
No real need to use jitter with that density.
And compare it to the proposed one from the insert menu.
light_source {<0,0,0> color rgb 1.0
area_light <8, 0, 0> <0, 0, 8> 4, 4
jitter circular orient translate <40, 80, -40>
}
Both cover the same area.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have now completed a full test render @ 1024x768 pixels, this took 21 1/2
hours.
I'm very satisfied with the results, and am now two days into rendering a 12.5
mega-pixel image. If the current rate of progress is anything to go by, it
should be finished in another week and a half.
Just one very small problem, while I am happy with the crackle patterned texture
for the street paving, it looks just a little _too_ irregular, as opposed to the
brick pattern, which looked to straight and clean cut.
Is there any pattern/macro/anything which can resemble a cobbled street or
something similar?
Many thanks everyone for the help,
D103
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2011 1:32 AM, D103 wrote:
> Is there any pattern/macro/anything which can resemble a cobbled street or
> something similar?
You might like to try the CobbledStreetMacro or CurvedPaving macros from
the PovRay library collections.
http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index.php
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 19/02/2011 1:32 AM, D103 wrote:
>> Is there any pattern/macro/anything which can resemble a cobbled
>> street or
>> something similar?
>
> You might like to try the CobbledStreetMacro or CurvedPaving macros from
> the PovRay library collections.
> http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index.php
>
Also, take a look at the Irregular_Bricks_Ptrn() macro from textures.inc.
There is a description of the macro and it's parameters in the inc file,
just before the macro itself.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"D103" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> This is something that has been bothering me for some time. My scene files are
> all very 'clinical', that is they are too perfect. For example, I have rendered
> a scene with a paved street, a brick wall and a lamp post, but everything looks
> perfectly 'clean'; the wall is perfectly straight, there is no dirt, no rubbish,
> no anything other than what I have already mentioned. What do I have to do to
> get natural looking scenes?
>
> Also, in over a year of using POV-Ray, I have not progressed much beyond the
> basic solid primitives, and blob has gone almost unused. Is there any kind of
> maths I need to study, or do I need to use a modeler, or what?
>
> If anyone could give me a hand with these questions, I would be much obliged.
>
> D103
Since posting this, I have discovered that I am quite short-sighted, and now
that I have glasses, I have found that most of what I thought was too perfect
actually is just fine detail that I couldn't see naturally before.
So now there's nothing I can't fix with textures. :-)
D103
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
D103 wrote:
> Since posting this, I have discovered that I am quite short-sighted, and now
> that I have glasses, I have found that most of what I thought was too perfect
> actually is just fine detail that I couldn't see naturally before.
good for you that you now have glasses! An alternative
solution would have been to use strong focal blur ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"D103" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Since posting this, I have discovered that I am quite short-sighted, and now
> that I have glasses, I have found that most of what I thought was too perfect
> actually is just fine detail that I couldn't see naturally before.
I know the feeling. Before you get your eyes tested, you don't even realize
that you are missing anything. Getting glasses is quite a pleasant shock.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
