 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I suspect the cyan is caused by the reflection of the sky.
Odd how you can only see it far away.
> reduce reflection
Is 0.5 too much?
> try variable reflection in the superpatch
Will do. Thanks. (=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Which image is which? Is the very bottom one the Bryce or Pov-Ray one? One
> thing, I like the water much better in the bottom image though perhaps there
> is a bit too much reflection. Otherwise very good image!
Isn't it obvious which is which? And besides, like I said: "I am including the
original Bryce image, and some close ups of the new image." If you notice, the
one with the X-Wing has the close ups, so it must be the new one (POV).
Thanks for the positive comments. I know there is probably too much reflection,
but then I can always say that that is what that planet's water is supposed to
look like. (=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you're using a version of POV prior to 3.1d, then you're probably seeing
> the normal-reflection bug. If that is the case, upgrade. If you already
> have 3.1e, then try decreasing the amount of normal you use (lower bumps).
I got 3.1e as soon as I could. I take pride in having all the latest versions
of the programs I use.
Here's the code for the water:
(yes, the scale is huge)
plane
{
y,0 hollow pigment {Clear}
finish {reflection .5} interior {ior 4/3}
normal {ripples scale 100 frequency 25}
}
plane {y,-20 pigment {Black}}
What size do you recommend?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The water actually looks very good; the cyan may indeed be caused by the
> normal bug, as Nathan said. A sugestion: it seems at least one wave center
> is visible in the image; you should try to remove it from there as this
> creates an overly regular pattern, aggravating the effects of aliasing in
> the distance.
Thank you for the compliment. I'll take your suggestion into account. Thanks.
> The textures in the original are obviously better, but nothing POV couldn't
> do wih a bit of tweaking. And the moon's ambient and diffuse values seem
> wrong. But overall I like the image.
How would you make a texture like the original moon, 'cause I really liked that
one.
What ambient? What diffuse? I never touch the stuff. Does it help to change it?
Here's the code for the moon:
(yup, it's a bigee)
sphere
{
0,1
pigment {bozo color_map {[.5 White*.9][1 Black]} scale 15/1500 turbulence 1}
normal {crackle scale 15/1500 rotate 10} scale 1500
translate <-1400,10.25,800>*3
clipped_by {plane {-y,0}}
}
What do you recommend?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Lookin good TonyB. It was mentioned before the cyan color
> is a reflection of the color of the sky and I would have to
> agree with that observation. I think the reason that it looks
> so obvious in the Pov versions, is that 1.) the sky is off
> color from the original and 2.) the waves in the Pov version
> are steeper than the Bryce version giving the water a chance
> to reflect more light directly back towards the camera's
> position. I would be willing to guess, that if you left
> your wave pattern type, and pattern float number alone, but
> increased the overall scaling evenly, it would flatten out
> nicely and give it properties more like the original you
> are trying to recreate. Well that is all I really have to
> offer but I look forward to seeing more of TonyB's work in
> the future.
Kudos from El Bestia. Wow... (=
I'm glad you like it. I'm actually using ripples scaled to 100 with a frequency
of 25. I haven't done anything to the wave type, don't 'normal'ly do that.
Hehe... I made a funny. (=
I also hope to be able to offer you all many more visual delicasies as my skill
at graphics increases.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
>
> I got 3.1e as soon as I could. I take pride in having all the latest versions
> of the programs I use.
>
> Here's the code for the water:
> (yes, the scale is huge)
>
> plane
> {
> y,0 hollow pigment {Clear}
> finish {reflection .5} interior {ior 4/3}
> normal {ripples scale 100 frequency 25}
> }
> plane {y,-20 pigment {Black}}
>
> What size do you recommend?
plane
{
y,0 hollow pigment {Clear}
finish {reflection .5} interior {ior 4/3}
normal {ripples 0.5 scale 100 frequency 25}
// ^^^
}
plane {y,-20 pigment {Black}}
This change makes the ripples 1/2 as steep (well, kind of). The smaller the
number after the ripples keyword, the shallower the waves.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's a good chance that if you were to replace 'ripples' altogther
with 'wrinkles' 'bumps' or 'dents' you might lose the vignetting.
Probably due mostly to regular lines at regular intervals. You can use
turbulence on the normal then to make the waves better.
TonyB wrote:
>
> Hello. I have been toying around with an old image I made with the demo
> of Bryce2, trying to turn it into a POV scene. I took the coordinates
> and rotations from the object properties of each object and also the
> camera. I also took the heightfield for consistency. I've discovered
> that with the Bryce demo you can have yourself a free mountain editor,
> you just copy and paste the heightfield after you're done. (=
>
> I know the textures are way off from the original (I mean, what do you
> expect?), and the spacecraft aren't the same ones (couldn't find the
> original meshes), but it looks pretty good, IMHO.
>
> I used AA sampling method 2. I set the AA threshold to 0.5. I turned
> display off. I set rendering priority highest, with GUI priority lowest.
> I rendered at 1600x800, 24-bit color. Quality 9, without radiosity. I
> set the max_trace_level to 20. It took 1hour, 45minutes and 30seconds to
> render on my faithful 133, 10seconds of it was parsing. It ate up
> 15935645 bytes of RAM. Enjoy.
>
> Oh, yeah. I am including the original Bryce image, and some close ups of
> the new image. I need help with the water texture and these wierd cyan
> bands that appear. Thanks.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello:
I think, perhaps, 0.5 might be a bit much and recommend starting as low
as 0.09 and working your way up ( also playing with the waters ambience
to get the right balance of reflection and "reflected" light). Another
consideration could be: Your sky. Whether it is a sky_sphere or an
actual hollowed sphere - if you greatly increase the size of it you will
draw the focus of reflection further out towards the horizon,
eliminationg the "cyan bands" that you see in the distance; i.e. the
distance from water's surface to sphere/sky_sphere is indirectly
proportionate to the harshness of the reflection - closer => harsher;
further => softer.
KB-
TonyB wrote:
> > I suspect the cyan is caused by the reflection of the sky.
>
> Odd how you can only see it far away.
>
> > reduce reflection
>
> Is 0.5 too much?
>
> > try variable reflection in the superpatch
>
> Will do. Thanks. (=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote in message <3723CA9A.5CD01E1D@panama.phoenix.net>...
>
>How would you make a texture like the original moon, 'cause I really liked
that
>one.
>What ambient? What diffuse? I never touch the stuff. Does it help to change
it?
>
For the finish, try something like this:
finish{ambient 0 diffuse .6 brilliance .3}
The low brilliance value makes the light/shadow boundary tighter, which IMO
looks better.
For the texture you can map on an actual image of the Moon's surface. I also
made a moon texture which I'm quite content with. It's rather complex and
not exactly perfect. Anyway, I'll post it in p.t.s-f (to make Ken happy :)
For the rock, I suggest a simple gradient y pattern, since the rock strata
are quite similar in colour. I have seen such textures in many places,
certainly in several IRTC entries, so check 'em out.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> Anyway, I'll post it in p.t.s-f (to make Ken happy :)
> Margus
Please ! Do not do so to keep me happy. Do so that the many may gain
from your wisdom, not just the few, or the one.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
