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.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'xwing.jpg' (37 KB) Download 'alienmoon2.jpg' (84 KB) Download 'ocean.jpg' (27 KB) Download 'alienmoon.jpg' (62 KB)

Preview of image 'xwing.jpg'

Preview of image 'alienmoon2.jpg'

Preview of image 'ocean.jpg'

Preview of image 'alienmoon.jpg'

Hi
I suspect the cyan is caused by the reflection of the sky.

reduce reflection

try variable reflection in the superpatch

Mick

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!

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]

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

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).

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

You simply can't give it a rest, can you? :)

Margus

Ken wrote in message <37239978.8BE62297@pacbell.net>...
>
> TonyB,
>
>  Lookin good TonyB. It was mentioned before, TonyB, 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, TonyB, 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,
>TonyB, 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 origianl you are trying to recreate. Well TonyB that is
>all I really have to offer but I look forward to seeing more
>of TonyB's work in the future.
>
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> You simply can't give it a rest, can you? :)
> 
> Margus

I was simply attempting to be both helpful and formal in my reply to
his message. I feel I crossed no boundries in the treatment of my text.

Respectfully,

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

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.
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.

Margus

TonyB wrote in message <37235608.7BCF21A8@panama.phoenix.net>...

>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.
>

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:
 >
 > 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.


 TonyB,

  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.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

> 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