 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is the first viewable result of a sky include file I am writing. I am
still struggling with certain aspects and the file - though usable - isn't
as smooth as I'd like it to be.
It is based on Preetham's model for skies found in "A practical analytical
model for daylight".
http://www.cs.utah.edu/vissim/papers/sunsky/index.html
It is designed to work with (and without) sunpos.inc and Jaimes Vives
Piqueres' light macros, although the integration isn't complete yet.
What do you think ?
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Test Skylight 05.jpg' (16 KB)
Preview of image 'Test Skylight 05.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool, but the shadows are weird.
Is this just one render or a composition?
I'm asking because each sphere has just one shadow, all pointing in
different directions and not consistent with the suns position.
Best regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JPGargoyle wrote:
> Cool, but the shadows are weird.
>
> Is this just one render or a composition?
>
> I'm asking because each sphere has just one
> shadow, all pointing in different directions
> and not consistent with the suns position.
The shadows are perfectly normal, and they *are* consistent with the
position of the sun. :)
Instead, consider which camera is used...
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision: http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] runevision com> wrote in message
news:3ddad2ad$1@news.povray.org...
> The shadows are perfectly normal, and they *are* consistent with the
> position of the sun. :)
>
They are?
> Instead, consider which camera is used...
>
Hmmm... spherical? cylindrical? fisheye? NO camera? :))
I can't tell. :P
Best regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"JPGargoyle" <jot### [at] netcabopt> wrote in news:3ddad710@news.povray.org
>> The shadows are perfectly normal, and they *are* consistent with the
>> position of the sun. :)
>> Instead, consider which camera is used...
> Hmmm... spherical? cylindrical? fisheye? NO camera? :))
Looks like 360 (horivontal) by 90 (*vertical) :)
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] runevisioncom> wrote :
> The shadows are perfectly normal, and they *are* consistent with the
> position of the sun. :)
>
> Instead, consider which camera is used...
Exact !
The camera used is spherical one with angles 372.9 (horizontal) x 180
(vertical).
The spheres are on a circle, not a line.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Philippe Debar wrote:
>Exact !
>
>The camera used is spherical one with angles 372.9 (horizontal) x 180
>(vertical).
>
>The spheres are on a circle, not a line.
Ah! Now I understood it! (EURECA)
The camera is at the center of the circle right?
Don't you have a way of making one of those 360 degrees photos that we can
see all around with Quicktime? That would be cool :))
Best regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JPGargoyle wrote:
> Ah! Now I understood it! (EURECA)
>
> The camera is at the center of the circle right?
Right.
> Don't you have a way of making one of those 360 degrees photos that we can
> see all around with Quicktime? That would be cool :))
I know it is possible but I never tried. IIRC Apple has a free tool for
doing this for MacOs and Windows (but it is difficult to find as it is
part of a larger download). IIRC (again) Thorsten has posted the url
some times ago, so you could do a search with the web interface.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>What do you think ?
Nice!
How does it handle extremes (i.e. sunrise and sunset)?
Did you manage to figure out how to apply the hinted model of haze in Pov's
media?
Could you please, pretty please, show us the source?
(I know, I'm avid. It's my nature, can't resist a sourcebait like this).
Alex
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nice!
:-D Thanks !
> How does it handle extremes (i.e. sunrise and sunset)?
See attached images (turbidity 1.0 and 8.0 skies)
Sunrise is the same as sunset, except for the orientation (which isn't yet
implemented)
> Did you manage to figure out how to apply the hinted model of haze in
Pov's
> media?
I figured I would pass, as I believe it would require a patch (or a
post-process).
But I will surely try one day to reproduce it with media, loosing all the
speed which was the model point.
> Could you please, pretty please, show us the source?
Soon, I promise. But right now it is still quickly mutating.
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Test Skylight 08b.JPG' (5 KB)
Download 'Test Skylight 08a.JPG' (4 KB)
Preview of image 'Test Skylight 08b.JPG'
Preview of image 'Test Skylight 08a.JPG'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
