Here's a little scene to demonstrate using media to simulate translucency
(diffuse transmission). Dont' tell me the wallpaper, table etc. suck. I know
and right now I don't care. Just concentrate your gaze upon the lamp shade
and tell me what you think.

I had to use very dense media to get only diffuse light transmission (rgb
1500). This posed a bit of a problem, understandable when you read my post
about media_interaction (in .general). So there are actually 2 lamp shades:
one, the media container, with a clear filter and no_shadow to avoid the
shadow of the media (which would be nearly opaque in this scene); and
another, slightly thicker, using a yellowish filter to create the shadow you
see.

In the process, I encountered other quirks. Using a area light changes the
appearance of the media radically (much brighter and horribly grainy). Using
transmit also makes the media very grainy. I'm still exploring these
problems.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lampshade.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'lampshade.jpg'

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Here's a little scene to demonstrate using media to simulate translucency
> (diffuse transmission). Dont' tell me the wallpaper, table etc. suck. I know
> and right now I don't care. Just concentrate your gaze upon the lamp shade
> and tell me what you think.

The table mearly sucks. The wall paper sucks immaculate. I will let it go
since it is a proof of concept image.
 
> I had to use very dense media to get only diffuse light transmission (rgb
> 1500). This posed a bit of a problem, understandable when you read my post
> about media_interaction (in .general). So there are actually 2 lamp shades:
> one, the media container, with a clear filter and no_shadow to avoid the
> shadow of the media (which would be nearly opaque in this scene); and
> another, slightly thicker, using a yellowish filter to create the shadow you
> see.
> 
> In the process, I encountered other quirks. Using a area light changes the
> appearance of the media radically (much brighter and horribly grainy). Using
> transmit also makes the media very grainy. I'm still exploring these
> problems.
> 
> Margus


Hi Margus,

  I think you are on the right track if media is the choice you
prefer to model translucency with. I still think there are other
alternatives but I am not going to say what until I get a chance
to test my own theories. Your rgb values sound a bit whacko and
I don't understand why you would have to go so high with them.
In this business whatever works I suppose.


Ken's tip of the week:

   An interesting thing happens to media used inside a container if you
add an ior value to the interior statement that also contains the density
statement. I don't understand exactly what happens but it has a tendency
to polarize(?) the grain structure of the media providing a somewhat
smoother appearance. It might be worth trying with the media in this model
to see how different it is and if it behaves better or worse. I tried this
with a color list patterns study I did about a month ago and there was a
noticeable difference in how the density appeared. In the case of where I
used it the difference was better as it both smoothed the density of the
media as well as giving it better visibility in the lighting conditions
that were used.
  Your mileage may differ and some restrictions do apply. See your local
representative for details or answers to other questions you may have
concerning these restrictions and ways you may remedy them. Void where
prohibited or restricted by law. All rights reserved. No other conditions
apply whether implied or otherwise.


 Have a nice day :)

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <37112AB4.43CC4E3C@pacbell.net>...
>
>Hi Margus,
>
>  I think you are on the right track if media is the choice you
>prefer to model translucency with. I still think there are other
>alternatives but I am not going to say what until I get a chance
>to test my own theories.

I am appropriately intriqued, yet I respect your reserve and aspire to
contain my curiosity. Quite frankly, I can't imagine what alternatives you
have in mind (except bezier patches)

>Your rgb values sound a bit whacko and
>I don't understand why you would have to go so high with them.
>In this business whatever works I suppose.
>

The scale of this scene is rather small and the walls of the shade are <0.01
units thick. So this value is by no means whacko. Anything less makes the
shade transparent (non-diffusively).

As for your tip: you are indeed correct. Adding ior to the media container
makes it much smoother. I already had ior in the outer (yellow) shade, but
this had no effect... Unfortunately, this also greatly changes the lighting
of the media, to something that is, in my opinion, incorrect. More
specifically, the top of the shade becomes extremely bright - possibly
because the light_source is closest to that part.
Yet another media mystery. I would VERY much like to know the explanation.

>  Your mileage may differ and some restrictions do apply. See your local
>representative for details or answers to other questions you may have
>concerning these restrictions and ways you may remedy them. Void where
>prohibited or restricted by law. All rights reserved. No other conditions
>apply whether implied or otherwise.
>


I will contact my solicitor for a detailed analysis of this statement and
any obligations, financial or otherwise, it may impose upon my person.

>
> Have a nice day :)
>

And a good night to you, kind sir!

Margus

Post a reply to this message

While this is OK, I imagine that the rendering time is quite large... what I
was proposing is for someone to write a specific function for it... not only
would this be faster and easier to work with, it would also have no sampling
problems commonly associated with media...

Anyway, I think you're on the right track though and that's looking quite
good!

Now see if you can do this, a lit candle... :)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> While this is OK, I imagine that the rendering time is quite large... what I
> was proposing is for someone to write a specific function for it... not only
> would this be faster and easier to work with, it would also have no sampling
> problems commonly associated with media...

  We understood your proposal but there is always going to people willing
to explore the possibilities of using the current abilities of the program
to model the effect that is needed. It may or may not be something extremely
easy is attacked the right way. I have seen things done with Pov that I
would never have dreamed was possible witht the available features but
there it was for all to see.
  The one big problem I have with Pov's current model for media is that
the monte carlo sampling method employed it too limited in scope to be
as useful as it needs to be to cover all of it's intended applications.
Some added options and better sampling features would extend it to become
a very powerful medium.

 
> Now see if you can do this, a lit candle... :)
> Lance.

Been there done that long ago. Piece of cake. See below.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'kcandle.jpg' (3 KB)

Preview of image 'kcandle.jpg'

he he, that wasn't exactly what I mean by the candle... But it's nice
candle!!!  :)))  I just meant, with translucency... :)  But I'm sure you
already knew that :)

--
Lance.

P.S.  I've uploaded a new website!!!  See below, Colorblind...  (also, it's
best viewed with IE or Neoplanet, because Netscape messes up the frames and
JavaScript, I haven't found a way around that yet...)

---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> he he, that wasn't exactly what I mean by the candle... But it's nice
> candle!!!  :)))  I just meant, with translucency... :)  But I'm sure you
> already knew that :)
> 
> --
> Lance.

  I don't know. Can you find anything uncandle like about the
appeareance of the candle image I posted. I thought not. Ok so
maybe a closer examiniation would reveal the lack of the material
properties you describe, then again it might not. I think I will
keep you guessing for the time being.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Well, the main thing I was looking at was the light fading in the candle...
(downwards)

You know how when you light a candle the top part is a lot lighter than the
base (and I don't mean the flame there either ;-) he he he

Also, the top part of the candle should be shinnier than the bottom (because
the wax is heated and takes on a shiny appearance).

Just a thought...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

I would like to see an example as created in that high priced, super max,
 do everything better software, made for the "real artist", 3d modelling
 stuff, and those other things too program, you keep mentioning that you
 use. You should be able to do something like this in that max thing in a
 couple of minutes to hear you talk. After I see how it is "supposed" to
 look I will then know what the realism threshold is that I must compete
 with. This will alow me to plan my next move accordingly.

 I'm waiting patiently and please have a nice day.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:14:37 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<lan### [at] usanet> wrote:

>Well, the main thing I was looking at was the light fading in the candle...
>(downwards)
>
>You know how when you light a candle the top part is a lot lighter than the
>base (and I don't mean the flame there either ;-) he he he
>
>Also, the top part of the candle should be shinnier than the bottom (because
>the wax is heated and takes on a shiny appearance).
>
>Just a thought...

Do you like this implementation, Lance? This is part of my May-June
1997 entry, re-rendered in 3.1 (no halo). Check the IRTC archive, I've
posted source too (indented and commented :) ). HTH.

---------
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'CANDLE.jpg' (21 KB)

Preview of image 'CANDLE.jpg'

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:14:37 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
> 
> >Well, the main thing I was looking at was the light fading in the candle...
> >(downwards)
> >
> >You know how when you light a candle the top part is a lot lighter than the
> >base (and I don't mean the flame there either ;-) he he he
> >
> >Also, the top part of the candle should be shinnier than the bottom (because
> >the wax is heated and takes on a shiny appearance).
> >
> >Just a thought...
> 
> Do you like this implementation, Lance? This is part of my May-June
> 1997 entry, re-rendered in 3.1 (no halo). Check the IRTC archive, I've
> posted source too (indented and commented :) ). HTH.
> 
> ---------
> Peter Popov

Hi Peter,

  I like it.

  I just visited about 20 candle web sites trying to get a good image
of a real burning candle and dicovered one surprising fact. People who
manufacture and sell candles know absolutely nothing about photography.
In virtualy all cases the candles were brand new when the photos were
taken and the flames were dancing at the ends of their long new wicks.
Added to this the majority were photographed against a light background
that reflected the over enthusiastic use of flash photographay which
nearly washed out the brilliance of the candle flame itself.
  One thing that I did notice is that a lot of what I think we percieve
as translucence is as much a pigmentation characteristic coupled with
a soft but very uniform reflective surface. The reflection on the
surface of a smooth candle is pretty high. I would guess a reflection
of .2 - .4 would be close to real.
  Also I just lit a candle that is designed to burn down through the
middle and leave the shell intact. Is has a splotchy red, dark turquoise,
and light pink pattern that goes through the candle. When looking at it
in a darkened room there is not nearly the kind of glow that you would
imagine. If aything it looks more like a pigment that has the ambient
setting turned up about .3 too high. Perhaps this varies from candle
to candle but I have no doubt that I could render an accurate duplicate
of this candle without the need to resort to anything else but standard
pigments and finish statements.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

>   I don't know. Can you find anything uncandle like about the
> appeareance of the candle image I posted. I thought not. Ok so
> maybe a closer examiniation would reveal the lack of the material
> properties you describe, then again it might not. I think I will
> keep you guessing for the time being.

well the candle itself is lame but the flame is incredible.  can you
share that code please?


<still banging his head about media>

Post a reply to this message

Scott McDonald wrote:
> 
> >   I don't know. Can you find anything uncandle like about the
> > appeareance of the candle image I posted. I thought not. Ok so
> > maybe a closer examiniation would reveal the lack of the material
> > properties you describe, then again it might not. I think I will
> > keep you guessing for the time being.
> 
> well the candle itself is lame but the flame is incredible.  can you
> share that code please?
> 
> <still banging his head about media>

Well lame this buddy !

Oh excuse me I got carried away.

  It is available at the Pov objects collection at http://twysted.net
the file is titled candle2.pov(zip ?) I don't remember the file extention
listed at the site. It is the number three downloaded object for the whole
collection so I think it is a popular item type. Either that or there
are a large number of confused pov users out there that are snatching
up anything that has media source so they can learn from it.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

> Well lame this buddy !

<thbbbt!> ;)
  
>   It is available at the Pov objects collection at http://twysted.net
> the file is titled candle2.pov(zip ?) I don't remember the file extention

ah, thanks, i'll grab it and then look at with no hopes of understanding
it ;)
for some reason i just can't wrap my mind around media very well.

aspiring to ken-ness,

Post a reply to this message

The render time was about 15 minutes, at AA 0.1
This image made me wish for the good ole' days of the halo, which was faster
and less noisy. But both halos and the method you describe have one
shortcoming - inflexibility. With media, I can apply a density pattern and
achieve VERY interesting results.

For my next trick, I may indeed produce a candle.

Margus

Lance Birch wrote in message <371152e0.0@news.povray.org>...
>While this is OK, I imagine that the rendering time is quite large... what
I
>was proposing is for someone to write a specific function for it... not
only
>would this be faster and easier to work with, it would also have no
sampling
>problems commonly associated with media...
>
>Anyway, I think you're on the right track though and that's looking quite
>good!
>
>Now see if you can do this, a lit candle... :)
>
>--
>Lance.
>
>
>---
>For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
>The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I also lit a candle to see what it looks like. Mine, however, had a white,
(presumably) more translucent inside. I indeed observed a glow in the
candle, going even deeper than I expected. Almost like an ambient gradient,
but not quite. No reflectiveness was observed, but then, the room was nearly
pitch dark.

Oh, and Peter, your candle sure looks good!

Margus

Ken wrote in message <37119290.3B46385D@pacbell.net>...
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>  I like it.
>
>  I just visited about 20 candle web sites trying to get a good image
>of a real burning candle and dicovered one surprising fact. People who
>manufacture and sell candles know absolutely nothing about photography.
>In virtualy all cases the candles were brand new when the photos were
>taken and the flames were dancing at the ends of their long new wicks.
>Added to this the majority were photographed against a light background
>that reflected the over enthusiastic use of flash photographay which
>nearly washed out the brilliance of the candle flame itself.
>  One thing that I did notice is that a lot of what I think we percieve
>as translucence is as much a pigmentation characteristic coupled with
>a soft but very uniform reflective surface. The reflection on the
>surface of a smooth candle is pretty high. I would guess a reflection
>of .2 - .4 would be close to real.
>  Also I just lit a candle that is designed to burn down through the
>middle and leave the shell intact. Is has a splotchy red, dark turquoise,
>and light pink pattern that goes through the candle. When looking at it
>in a darkened room there is not nearly the kind of glow that you would
>imagine. If aything it looks more like a pigment that has the ambient
>setting turned up about .3 too high. Perhaps this varies from candle
>to candle but I have no doubt that I could render an accurate duplicate
>of this candle without the need to resort to anything else but standard
>pigments and finish statements.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

EXCELLENT WORK!  Looks great Peter!

I'm going to try to model one in MAX and use it's raytraced translucency to
see if I can accurately model a real candle... but with school starting
again tomorrow (uuhhhhh.......) and tests on the first (? 2nd?) day back,
I'm going to be swamped... this post may be my last for a few days...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Post a reply to this message

OK, I've made a candle as you requested in MAX, I must admit it needs a lot
of work to get it looking right, I've never used the translucency blurring
in MAX before, so I think the settings need changing a bit before I can get
the light fading right... but anyway, here it is.  The candle is a
traditional dipped candle, so it obviously doesn't look like the previous
posting from you (which looks more synthetic, or at least a "mass-produced"
style).

I've focused more on trying to get the translucency right than the model, so
please don't criticise it TOO much!  :)

I've also tried to simulate the bulging which is typical of these kinds of
candles... (the natural wax is not as, um, what's the word, durable(?) as
synthetic wax).

I've also tried to introduce some blotchiness into the wax... it doesn't
show up much on the sides at the moment, so I'll have to work on that...

I'm going to post an example of the "rice paper" shadow casting soon also...
I've made a kind of resin texture...

Anyway, enough talking!!!  Tell me what you think!  :-)

Lance.

P.S.
> do everything better software, made for the "real artist", 3d modelling

Did I say it did everything better?  NO!  In fact I criticised it's
raytracer for being slow...  As for "real artist" I never said that
either... in fact I believe that renders are just artists' tools.

---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Ken wrote...
>I would like to see an example as created in that high priced, super max,
> do everything better software, made for the "real artist", 3d modelling
> stuff, and those other things too program, you keep mentioning that you
> use. You should be able to do something like this in that max thing in a
> couple of minutes to hear you talk. After I see how it is "supposed" to
> look I will then know what the realism threshold is that I must compete
> with. This will alow me to plan my next move accordingly.
>
> I'm waiting patiently and please have a nice day.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'maxcandle.jpg' (14 KB)

Preview of image 'maxcandle.jpg'

Responses?  Anyone?  Ken?

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
Lance Birch wrote in message <3712e32d.0@news.povray.org>...

>OK, I've made a candle as you requested in MAX, I must admit it needs a lot
>of work to get it looking right, I've never used the translucency blurring
>in MAX before, so I think the settings need changing a bit before I can get
>the light fading right... but anyway, here it is.  The candle is a
>traditional dipped candle, so it obviously doesn't look like the previous
>posting from you (which looks more synthetic, or at least a "mass-produced"
>style).
>
>I've focused more on trying to get the translucency right than the model,
so
>please don't criticise it TOO much!  :)
>
>I've also tried to simulate the bulging which is typical of these kinds of
>candles... (the natural wax is not as, um, what's the word, durable(?) as
>synthetic wax).
>
>I've also tried to introduce some blotchiness into the wax... it doesn't
>show up much on the sides at the moment, so I'll have to work on that...
>
>I'm going to post an example of the "rice paper" shadow casting soon
also...
>I've made a kind of resin texture...
>
>Anyway, enough talking!!!  Tell me what you think!  :-)
>
>Lance.
>
>P.S.
>> do everything better software, made for the "real artist", 3d modelling
>
>Did I say it did everything better?  NO!  In fact I criticised it's
>raytracer for being slow...  As for "real artist" I never said that
>either... in fact I believe that renders are just artists' tools.

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I'd say that is what a lit candle should look like. The flame is too
bright, but I guess that's not the point here.
Still, I'm beginning to wonder if it would be possible to make a transluce
with nothing but an ambience gradient...

Margus

Lance Birch wrote in message <3712e32d.0@news.povray.org>...
>OK, I've made a candle as you requested in MAX, I must admit it needs a lot
>of work to get it looking right, I've never used the translucency blurring
>in MAX before, so I think the settings need changing a bit before I can get
>the light fading right... but anyway, here it is.  The candle is a
>traditional dipped candle, so it obviously doesn't look like the previous
>posting from you (which looks more synthetic, or at least a "mass-produced"
>style).
>
>I've focused more on trying to get the translucency right than the model,
so
>please don't criticise it TOO much!  :)
>
>I've also tried to simulate the bulging which is typical of these kinds of
>candles... (the natural wax is not as, um, what's the word, durable(?) as
>synthetic wax).
>
>I've also tried to introduce some blotchiness into the wax... it doesn't
>show up much on the sides at the moment, so I'll have to work on that...
>
>I'm going to post an example of the "rice paper" shadow casting soon
also...
>I've made a kind of resin texture...
>
>Anyway, enough talking!!!  Tell me what you think!  :-)
>
>Lance.
>
>P.S.
>> do everything better software, made for the "real artist", 3d modelling
>
>Did I say it did everything better?  NO!  In fact I criticised it's
>raytracer for being slow...  As for "real artist" I never said that
>either... in fact I believe that renders are just artists' tools.
>
>---
>For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
>The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
>For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
>Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
>

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I'd say that is what a lit candle should look like. The flame is too
> bright, but I guess that's not the point here.
> Still, I'm beginning to wonder if it would be possible to make a transluce
> with nothing but an ambience gradient...
> 
> Margus

Agreed !

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

A little correction. I meant to write:
"if it would be possible to make _a translucent candle_ with nothing but an
ambience gradient."
Other cases (like the lamp shade) might prove a bit more tricky.

Margus

Ken wrote in message <37139EB9.96DA40EA@pacbell.net>...
>Margus Ramst wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I'd say that is what a lit candle should look like. The flame is
too
>> bright, but I guess that's not the point here.
>> Still, I'm beginning to wonder if it would be possible to make a
transluce
>> with nothing but an ambience gradient...
>>
>> Margus
>
>Agreed !
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I was just about to point that out :)

Yes, it should be possible to do that... of course if you're using multiple
light sources it could become tricky, but for a candle using an ambient
gradient should work just fine I think...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Margus Ramst wrote...
>A little correction. I meant to write:
>"if it would be possible to make _a translucent candle_ with nothing but an
>ambience gradient."
>Other cases (like the lamp shade) might prove a bit more tricky.

Post a reply to this message

You didn't really tell me what you thought Ken... :-(

Oh well... yes, I agree with Margus.  The flame is way too bright... (looks
more like the beginning of a small nuclear explosion actually ;-)

For a candle an ambient gradient should suffice...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Ken wrote in message <37139EB9.96DA40EA@pacbell.net>...
>Margus Ramst wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I'd say that is what a lit candle should look like. The flame is
too
>> bright, but I guess that's not the point here.
>> Still, I'm beginning to wonder if it would be possible to make a
transluce
>> with nothing but an ambience gradient...
>>
>> Margus
>
>Agreed !
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Funny thing; seems the consensus is for "as seen with the un-aided eye"
instead of by photograph (time exposures and such) and yet there are
focal blurs, motion blurs, etc which are camera effects essentially (ah,
well yes, human eye percieves these as well).


Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> You didn't really tell me what you thought Ken... :-(
> 
> Oh well... yes, I agree with Margus.  The flame is way too bright... (looks
> more like the beginning of a small nuclear explosion actually ;-)
> 
> For a candle an ambient gradient should suffice...
> 
> --
> Lance.
> 
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
> For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
> Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
> 
> Ken wrote in message <37139EB9.96DA40EA@pacbell.net>...
> >Margus Ramst wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, I'd say that is what a lit candle should look like. The flame is
> too
> >> bright, but I guess that's not the point here.
> >> Still, I'm beginning to wonder if it would be possible to make a
> transluce
> >> with nothing but an ambience gradient...
> >>
> >> Margus
> >
> >Agreed !
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Yes I know, they all seem to give an image that extra bit of realism though
:)  And plus, they're just plain FUN!!!  ;-)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Bob Hughes wrote...
>Funny thing; seems the consensus is for "as seen with the un-aided eye"
>instead of by photograph (time exposures and such) and yet there are
>focal blurs, motion blurs, etc which are camera effects essentially (ah,
>well yes, human eye percieves these as well).

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> You didn't really tell me what you thought Ken... :-(

> --
> Lance.

Sorry about that.

Life has been in the way and I have not had time to correspond in my usual
robust manner. Hopefully the outside will release it's hold over me gradually
in the next few days and things can get back to normal. Whatever that is.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

he he he, I know the feeling........ "STOP it, I'm TRYING to render!!!"

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind
Ken wrote in message <3716F8F9.F545FBEC@pacbell.net>...
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> You didn't really tell me what you thought Ken... :-(
>
>> --
>> Lance.
>
>Sorry about that.
>
>Life has been in the way and I have not had time to correspond in my usual
>robust manner. Hopefully the outside will release it's hold over me
gradually
>in the next few days and things can get back to normal. Whatever that is.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message