I have worked on the stairs - i'm not yet content with the colors, need to
be more saturated, but i thought i'd post the first version.  

The geometry is changeable quite easily, feel free to experiment with the
control points and the sizes.  I'm not quite sure about the scaling, the
stairs are steeper in the original but they would be completely in shadow
then.  I am also not sure about the scaling.  I originally thought we have
1 unit = 1 meter but it seems more 1 unit = 2 meter.  

Once we have agreed on a geometry the figures need to be adapted to it.  I
only placed them roughly for the moment.  

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capriccio13.jpg' (73 KB) Download 'capriccio13_detail.jpg' (135 KB)

Preview of image 'capriccio13.jpg'

Preview of image 'capriccio13_detail.jpg'

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> I have worked on the stairs - i'm not yet content with the colors, need to
> be more saturated, but i thought i'd post the first version.

It looks great even right now!
You are right about colors. Maybe it should not be so... colorful :)
Such detailed cathedral and this stair will need more details on houses.
So we will definitely will need heightfields or isosurfaces for basements :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Breathtaking!
It's especially the dents that makes it look so good.
How many steps are the stairs going below the water? Is it supposed to
be only one, or is the water to dark to see the rest?

Anything I could help out with Gena? Not that I see myself among the
POV-elite, but would've been fun anyway =)

Keep up the great work all of you!
-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Gena Obukhov <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in 
news:3EB590A8.FE7DE3C9@mail.com

> Maybe it should not be so... colorful 

imho this might be a technical problem, try using

recursion_limit 10 // or even higher
adc_bailout 1/256

(and ofcourse other radiosity settings like eror bound and minimal 
reuse)

-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-
min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local 
l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end 
light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 
9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:
> 
> Breathtaking!
> It's especially the dents that makes it look so good.

What do you mean with 'dents'?

> How many steps are the stairs going below the water? Is it supposed to
> be only one, or is the water to dark to see the rest?

There is only one.  I am not sure how many it should be, the water is
probably not that deep directly at the steps.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
> 
> > Maybe it should not be so... colorful
> 
> imho this might be a technical problem, try using
> 
> recursion_limit 10 // or even higher

Very funny.  

Why don't you try it out yourself...

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

> Anything I could help out with Gena? Not that I see myself among the
> POV-elite, but would've been fun anyway =)

Everybody is welcomed. Everybody who feels that he/she can make a
good contribution and can make a good object/texture or improve
existing object/texture/color/lighting.

We still need such objects as human figures, boats/sails, wooden posts,
clouds.
Right  now there is a texture/bump_map for tiles on the roof. If you could

make real tiles (which don't need too much parsing/rendering time) with
good
coloring it would be helpful as well.

We will also need that sculpture group (constrained by triangle) on the
portal
of the cathedral. More likely it should be heightfield. Even if you could
provide
detailed reference photos it would be very helpful too :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in 
news:3EB6C655.7253DA4F@gmx.de

>> imho this might be a technical problem, try using
>> recursion_limit 10 // or even higher
> Very funny.  
> Why don't you try it out yourself...

I did. I agree it need some time and strong cpu.

Post a reply to this message

> What do you mean with 'dents'?
'Dents' as opposed to 'bumps'? Or did I miss the correct word
completely? See the attatchment.

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'dents.jpg' (18 KB)

Preview of image 'dents.jpg'

> Everybody is welcomed.
> We still need such objects as human figures, boats/sails, wooden
posts,
> If you could make real tiles
Nice, I'll se if I can do any of those objects. How do you feel about
meshes(Wings3D) contra SDL? I'd belive SDL are preffered, but are meshes
accepted and is there a max size?

> We will also need that sculpture group (constrained by triangle) on
the
> portal of the cathedral. More likely it should be heightfield.
I belive it could be done with poser figures and then converted to a
heightfield?

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

All the figures so far are meshes done in Wings

Be aware that the figure on the prow of the boat at left has also been 
done I just haven't uploaded it yet

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

> Nice, I'll se if I can do any of those objects. How do you feel about
> meshes(Wings3D) contra SDL? I'd belive SDL are preffered, but are meshes
> accepted and is there a max size?

Any way. The only requirement - it should be good looking object(s)
with convincing texturing :) Meshes can be well compressed by ZIP
because of their text nature.

> I belive it could be done with poser figures and then converted to a
> heightfield?

This is very good idea (though I've never used Poser). I think this way
you can use copyrighted Poser objects,  right? Just compose the scene
with human figures, horses etc. use orthographic camera, special
direct light and make black&white image for heightfield.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> This is very good idea (though I've never used Poser). I think this way
> you can use copyrighted Poser objects,  right? Just compose the scene
> with human figures, horses etc. use orthographic camera, special
> direct light and make black&white image for heightfield.

Here is the technique which I meant. First image is my original model
created in sPatch. Second image is the same model but with gradient
-z color_map from black to white. The third image is the heightfield
relief created from the second image.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'relief.jpg' (36 KB)

Preview of image 'relief.jpg'

I can see this as being great also for doing arty releifs on walls.  Hmm
perhaps a Egyptian job there...!  :)


> Here is the technique which I meant. First image is my original model
> created in sPatch. Second image is the same model but with gradient
> -z color_map from black to white. The third image is the heightfield
> relief created from the second image.

Post a reply to this message

Aaron wrote:

> I can see this as being great also for doing arty releifs on walls.  Hmm
> perhaps a Egyptian job there...!  :)

Exactly.
Here is the relief (on the top of portal) which we'd like to mimic:
http://www.milton.com/praha2002/im000163.jpg

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena Obukhov wrote:
> 
> > This is very good idea (though I've never used Poser). I think this way
> > you can use copyrighted Poser objects,  right? Just compose the scene
> > with human figures, horses etc. use orthographic camera, special
> > direct light and make black&white image for heightfield.
> 
> Here is the technique which I meant. First image is my original model
> created in sPatch. Second image is the same model but with gradient
> -z color_map from black to white. The third image is the heightfield
> relief created from the second image.

That's probably a good idea.  I made some tests with generating a
heightfield from the photograph on

http://www.milton.com/praha2002/im000163.jpg

here is the result.  It surely does not look very good which is of course
partly because the photo is not that good for this purpose.  What helps is
that shading in our case is somewhat similar to the photo although with
more shallow lighting - otherwise you would not even recognize the rough
geometry.  

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capriccio_relief1.jpg' (24 KB)

Preview of image 'capriccio_relief1.jpg'

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> here is the result.  It surely does not look very good which is of course
> partly because the photo is not that good for this purpose.  What helps is
> that shading in our case is somewhat similar to the photo although with
> more shallow lighting - otherwise you would not even recognize the rough
> geometry.

Yeh, we need more detailed photo(s). So if there is anybody who lives
nearby the cathedral could you take some pictures ?  :)

As far as I know Poser has also horse object(s). Could anybody who
has Poser try to make some kind of horseman relief using technique
described in this thread?

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> Yeh, we need more detailed photo(s). So if there is anybody who lives
> nearby the cathedral could you take some pictures ?  :)
>
> As far as I know Poser has also horse object(s). Could anybody who
> has Poser try to make some kind of horseman relief using technique
> described in this thread?

That relief technique looks really good! I have Poser 3, with the horse and
everything, but since there is no way to do clothing, it could prove a bit
difficult? Or are the figures mostly nude? I'll se what I can cook up in the
weekend, shout out if you find some better reference pictures.

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Found a nice close up...

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200102-e10-london/st-pauls-facade-top.
half.jpg

and a wider angle:

http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200102-e10-london/st-pauls-facade.half
.jpg

Cheers

"Peter Hertel" <peter**NO@SPAM**hertel.no> wrote in message
news:3eba10c4@news.povray.org...
> > Yeh, we need more detailed photo(s). So if there is anybody who lives
> > nearby the cathedral could you take some pictures ?  :)
> >
> > As far as I know Poser has also horse object(s). Could anybody who
> > has Poser try to make some kind of horseman relief using technique
> > described in this thread?
>
> That relief technique looks really good! I have Poser 3, with the horse
and
> everything, but since there is no way to do clothing, it could prove a bit
> difficult? Or are the figures mostly nude? I'll se what I can cook up in
the
> weekend, shout out if you find some better reference pictures.
>
> -Peter
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Darren Hewson wrote:

> Found a nice close up...
> 
> http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200102-e10-london/st-pauls-facade-top.
> half.jpg
> 
> and a wider angle:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200102-e10-london/st-pauls-facade.half
> .jpg

My newsreader broke the first link between "top." and "half.jpg" but 
strangely enough, I got the image anyway, just in even higher 
resolution. The same works for the other image: drop the "half." and you 
get the image in double res.

Thank for the links, btw.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

> Darren Hewson wrote:
> > Found a nice close up...
So that's what it looks like! :) Thanks a bunch!

> My newsreader broke the first link between "top." and "half.jpg" but
> strangely enough, I got the image anyway, just in even higher
> resolution. The same works for the other image: drop the "half." and
you
> get the image in double res.
Ain't you a tricky one ;) Tak!

If the final resolution are to be 6000x8000 the triangle will then be
about 1050pixels wide, or? I just need a feeling of how detailed it has
to be.

I've attatched my first test render, and looking at the new reference
pictures I think I can get away with it if I do some helmets in Wings.
And perhaps a sword, and some nice outfits and armor and.. :) Hmm.. The
casual Poser 3 man might look better because he has a t-shirt on.. This
is fun! *running away playing more*

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test01.jpg' (16 KB)

Preview of image 'test01.jpg'

Peter Hertel wrote:

> If the final resolution are to be 6000x8000 the triangle will then be
> about 1050pixels wide, or? I just need a feeling of how detailed it has
> to be.


I get the triangle to be close to 25% of the image width, at its widest, 
which is 1500 pixel. I don't have the exact size of the triangle, as it 
is going to be the last part, that I model, unfortunately, due to the 
way I'm working through the building. The acute angles a going to be 
close to 27 deg, though.

> I've attatched my first test render, and looking at the new reference
> pictures I think I can get away with it if I do some helmets in Wings.


Looking very promising.


/Ib

Post a reply to this message

Gena Obukhov wrote:

> Here is the technique which I meant. First image is my original model
> created in sPatch. Second image is the same model but with gradient
> -z color_map from black to white. The third image is the heightfield
> relief created from the second image.
> 
Gena, exactly how did you generate that second image?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Gena Obukhov wrote:
> 
>> Here is the technique which I meant. First image is my original model
>> created in sPatch. Second image is the same model but with gradient
>> -z color_map from black to white. The third image is the heightfield
>> relief created from the second image.
>>
> Gena, exactly how did you generate that second image?
> 
Never mind, I see now.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> Never mind, I see now.

Just a clarification for the other people :) The texture should look
smth. like:

pigment {
    gradient -z
    color_map {
        [0 1 color rgb 0 color rgb 1]
    }
    scale ...
    translate ...
}
finish{ambient 1}

The main problem is  that scale... translate ... block. You have either
to know minimum and maximum Z coordinate of your object or just
play with it.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> I get the triangle to be close to 25% of the image width, at its
widest,
> which is 1500 pixel. I don't have the exact size of the triangle, as
it
> is going to be the last part, that I model, unfortunately, due to the
> way I'm working through the building. The acute angles a going to be
> close to 27 deg, though.

Ok, I'll do some dummy boxes to test with.
Here is another test with the reference picture embedded for comparsion.
Is there need for much more detail? I need to postion the bodies so that
they give more depth. And by the way, you can't open the mouth of the
horse in Poser 3.

If anyone is interested, I did it like this:
Posed a horse and a casual male in Poser.
Exportet to obj, then to pov via PoseRay, fixed the textures.
Used a texture similar to Gena's and rendered a orthographic view or the
model which I saved in resolution 1000x1000 (png).
When I had two such greyscale maps, I used them as height_fields and
positioned them together with the temporary csg sun, then I did another
orthographic shot and saved the last heightfield.

But now a question, what is the man to the far left doing? ("O" marks
him ;-)
Is he bending his hip in some insane position, or is there two people on
the horse? Is he strangeling himself or covering his eyes?

Perhaps I'm too tired..

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test03.jpg' (75 KB)

Preview of image 'test03.jpg'

And if, like me, you happen to be using a mesh2 object that you converted
using 3dwin, you must remember to remove the uv_mapping keyword from the
object declaration. ;)

Gena, I know I read somewhere that you published a somehow faster 
version of Tomtree or something to that effect.  But I can no longer 
find where you referred to it or where it is.  Could you remind me where 
you put it?

Thanks, Jim

PS. your -z gradient pigment thingy has given me an idea for the next 
IRTC round.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> Gena, I know I read somewhere that you published a somehow faster
> version of Tomtree or something to that effect.  But I can no longer
> find where you referred to it or where it is.  Could you remind me where
> you put it?

See the post in p.b.s.-f. group with subject 'Tree + Snow' posted on 1/29/03
and example image in this group (p.b.i) with the same subject.

In the future I'm going to bundle TOMTREEm.inc with POV-Tree
together with leaf and seamless bark image maps for UV-mapping.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

> But now a question, what is the man to the far left doing? ("O" marks
> him ;-)
> Is he bending his hip in some insane position, or is there two people on
> the horse? Is he strangeling himself or covering his eyes?

He is coverings his eyes. As for the leg, it may be distorted a bit, to 
avoid having it stick out of the relief.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 May 2003 13:44:03 -0700, Gena <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote:
> The main problem is  that scale... translate ... block. You have either
> to know minimum and maximum Z coordinate of your object or just
> play with it.

http://www.povray.org/search/?s=min_extent
http://www.povray.org/search/?s=max_extent

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

> Here is another test with the reference picture embedded for comparsion.

Good start.

> Is there need for much more detail?

Usually more details - better ;)

> When I had two such greyscale maps, I used them as height_fields and
> positioned them together with the temporary csg sun, then I did another
> orthographic shot and saved the last heightfield.

Maybe it's better to have the whole scene and apply that gradient texture
to all objects (?) This way you don't loose heightfield quality. The only
problem can arise here - a lack of memory for the herd of horses :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> > Is there need for much more detail?
> Usually more details - better ;)

Yeah, I'll work on that. It looks a bit flat, if I manage to get better
depth in the image it might help as well. Perhaps doing some manual painting
on the image_map will make it look better too.

> > When I had two such greyscale maps, I used them as height_fields and
> > positioned them together with the temporary csg sun, then I did another
> > orthographic shot and saved the last heightfield.
> Maybe it's better to have the whole scene and apply that gradient texture
> to all objects (?) This way you don't loose heightfield quality. The only
> problem can arise here - a lack of memory for the herd of horses :)

As I'm only in the early tests I did it this way because it was much
quicker. It's also much easier to tweak the gradient texture when you know
the exact size of the object. But if I save the first height_fields in
resolution 3000x3000, it should be enough, no? That'll take a lot of memory
too, though..

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:

> See the post in p.b.s.-f. group with subject 'Tree + Snow' posted on 1/29/03
> and example image in this group (p.b.i) with the same subject.
> 
> In the future I'm going to bundle TOMTREEm.inc with POV-Tree
> together with leaf and seamless bark image maps for UV-mapping.
> 
> Gena.
> 
Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

>>>Is there need for much more detail?
>>>
>>Usually more details - better ;)

The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup being 
only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'teststpaul05.jpg' (67 KB)

Preview of image 'teststpaul05.jpg'

Ib Rasmussen wrote:

> The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup being
> only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.

Wow! Very impressive!
I think it's the best architectual CG object I've ever seen.
Are you still working on it? I'd like to add it to my changes and
render the scene (hopefully this week).

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:

> I think it's the best architectual CG object I've ever seen.


Well, thank you, but I hope not. I have done at least two other churches 
with a lot more precision and detail :)

> Are you still working on it? I'd like to add it to my changes and
> render the scene (hopefully this week).


I have some minor adjustments to do, and I would like to try and fit it 
into the scene as closely to the painting as possible. Have you done any 
changes to the camera since your last posted version?

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

Ib:

It really is incredible.  I admire you patience and good eye
for proportion and detail.

Aaron

Post a reply to this message

Ib Rasmussen wrote:

> Well, thank you, but I hope not. I have done at least two other churches
> with a lot more precision and detail :)

Yeh, I know. But I like this one more, I don't know why :)
What do you think about textures? I could suggest you some
image maps for dome and walls. I know that you are POV-Ray
purist and don't like any image maps :) but I think image maps
will look more real-life than procedural textures.

> Have you done any
> changes to the camera since your last posted version?

No.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:

> What do you think about textures? I could suggest you some
> image maps for dome and walls. I know that you are POV-Ray
> purist and don't like any image maps :) but I think image maps
> will look more real-life than procedural textures.


I was hoping I could leave the texturing to you, because I can't get 
anything to look right with assumed_gamma 1. I'm going to clean up my 
texture use to as few as possible, and declare them all at the beginning 
of the file, so it should be easy to change them.

>>Have you done any
>>changes to the camera since your last posted version?
> 
> No.


Good, the I will take the latest version and try and fit the model to 
the painting, before I post it.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

> The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup
being
> only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.

Not at all, and that's an incredible model you've created!
Sadly I've not been able to do much work on my part lately, been a busy
week in RL(TM). What I've done is created some objects (helmet, sword,
some cloth) in Wings3D and added them to the figures in Poser, in
addition to repose the things. I've also done what Gena suggested and
included all the figures in the scene, thus only produsing one
height_field. I think I'm also going to do some manual editing to the
image to increase the details in some places.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'hf_final.jpg' (11 KB)

Preview of image 'hf_final.jpg'

That reminds me my very old picture in traditional media:

http://propro.ru/go/gallery/images/knights.jpg

The following image is my attempt (which lasts two years :)
to do the same on computer. And the second image is a
heightfield created from the first image.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'knights1.jpg' (51 KB) Download 'knights2.jpg' (45 KB)

Preview of image 'knights1.jpg'

Preview of image 'knights2.jpg'

Peter Hertel wrote:

> included all the figures in the scene, thus only produsing one
> height_field.


I would like to put a dummy height_field in in my model, so when yours 
is ready, it should just be a matter of replacing my dummy file with it, 
and it will be in place on the cathedral. I hope.

To do that, I need to know what file type you are using, and what you a 
going to call the height_field file.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

> > included all the figures in the scene, thus only produsing one
> > height_field.
> I would like to put a dummy height_field in in my model, so when yours
> is ready, it should just be a matter of replacing my dummy file with
it,
> and it will be in place on the cathedral. I hope.
>
> To do that, I need to know what file type you are using, and what you
a
> going to call the height_field file.

I'd like to use PNG if it's okay, and the filename can be something like
"cathedral_relief.png" all lowercase. Or use anything you like, it
wouldn't matter to me.
What resolution and aspect ratio are you going to use? Are you going to
use CSG to cut out a triangle of the height_field? If you could give me
a copy of the dummy image, I'll adapt the aspect ratio from that.

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Peter Hertel wrote:

> I'd like to use PNG if it's okay, and the filename can be something like
> "cathedral_relief.png" all lowercase. Or use anything you like, it
> wouldn't matter to me.


PNG is fine. It doesn't really matter, as long as we agree.


> What resolution and aspect ratio are you going to use? Are you going to
> use CSG to cut out a triangle of the height_field?


Yes, I'm cutting the hf. Here is the code:


#declare FcdPedimentTympanum=difference {
    object {
       height_field {png "cathedral_relief.png" smooth }
       scale <700, 20, 171>
       rotate <-90, 0, 0>
       translate <-350, 0, 0>
    }
    plane {-y, 0 rotate <0, 0,  26> translate <-350, 0, 0> }
    plane {-y, 0 rotate <0, 0, -26> translate < 350, 0, 0> }
    plane {-z, 0 translate <0, 0, 1000> }
}

For some reason, I don't quite understand, my dummy hf projected out 
very far behind the facade, that's why I cut with the -z-plane.

/Ib

Post a reply to this message