I used a random, though somewhat predefined method of placing bricks on a
plane. Then I created a box with a silty media and topped by a height_field
with the properties of water (I even used irid).

You can see the little artifacts on the water surface. I haven't gone back
and tried any fixes. Would there be any benefit of outputting an hf_gray_16
rendering to a 48-bit png? I just haven't tried it, or anything else.

--
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'BrikWatr.jpg' (30 KB)

Preview of image 'BrikWatr.jpg'

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> I used a random, though somewhat predefined method of placing bricks on a
> plane. Then I created a box with a silty media and topped by a height_field
> with the properties of water (I even used irid).
> 
> You can see the little artifacts on the water surface. I haven't gone back
> and tried any fixes. Would there be any benefit of outputting an hf_gray_16
> rendering to a 48-bit png? I just haven't tried it, or anything else.
> 
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

I'm just guessing here but it appears you are seeing the
grid sections of the height field. You might reduce the
artifacts by using a larger image for the height field.
A larger image provides more grid squares per pov unit.

What size image was used for the HF ? Just curious.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

>What size image was used for the HF ? Just curious.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>


I think I used 640x480. I did this about six months ago (heh). I just pulled
this frame out of the flh. BTW, a 33 frame flh of this animation was 17Megs
at 640x480x32768 resolution.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> >What size image was used for the HF ? Just curious.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> 
> I think I used 640x480. I did this about six months ago (heh). I just pulled
> this frame out of the flh. BTW, a 33 frame flh of this animation was 17Megs
> at 640x480x32768 resolution.

only seventeen ??? <- sarcasm ;-)

Just to say I like the image, and I agree with ken, the larger->the better -> the more
memory it takes ....


//Spider

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> I used a random, though somewhat predefined method of placing bricks on a
> plane. Then I created a box with a silty media and topped by a height_field
> with the properties of water (I even used irid).
> 
> You can see the little artifacts on the water surface. I haven't gone back
> and tried any fixes. Would there be any benefit of outputting an hf_gray_16
> rendering to a 48-bit png? I just haven't tried it, or anything else.
> 
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
> 
>  [Image]

Ken might have nailed it, it does seem to be the grids of the HF... so
bigger image, or move the camera back further... play with scale, maybe?
Or, import into Leveler and try Smooth a few times... <shrug>

Looks nice :)

-- 
Saif Ansari
	Choking on the dust of humanity
	Slashing my wrists with silicon

"Don't blow those brains yet
we gotta be big
boy
we gotta be big." -- Tori Amos

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> I used a random, though somewhat predefined method of placing bricks on a
> plane. Then I created a box with a silty media and topped by a height_field
> with the properties of water (I even used irid).
> 
> You can see the little artifacts on the water surface. I haven't gone back
> and tried any fixes. Would there be any benefit of outputting an hf_gray_16
> rendering to a 48-bit png? I just haven't tried it, or anything else.
> 
> --
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet
> 
>  [Image]

Use the biggest res hf you can.
Did you use the smooth keyword for your hf?
No 48 bit won't help, 16 bit greyscale is the best you can get.

BTW. Cool pic, I like it a lot :)

Cheers, PoD.

Post a reply to this message

PoD wrote in message <36B### [at] merlinnetau>...
>Use the biggest res hf you can.
>Did you use the smooth keyword for your hf?
>No 48 bit won't help, 16 bit greyscale is the best you can get.
>
>BTW. Cool pic, I like it a lot :)
>
>Cheers, PoD.

Thank you! I really liked working on it, and I couldn't believe my eyes when
it was finished! I only wish there was a convenient way to distribute a full
screen animation.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> PoD wrote in message <36B### [at] merlinnetau>...
> >Use the biggest res hf you can.
> >Did you use the smooth keyword for your hf?
> >No 48 bit won't help, 16 bit greyscale is the best you can get.
> >
> >BTW. Cool pic, I like it a lot :)
> >
> >Cheers, PoD.
> 
> Thank you! I really liked working on it, and I couldn't believe my eyes when
> it was finished! I only wish there was a convenient way to distribute a full
> screen animation.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

Hollywood does it all of the time :) Maybe you could submit
it to one of the public broadcasting stations and ask them
to air it in one of their animation festivals. Or ...

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

NOT. :)

I just wanted to share with artists. heh

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message