Image posted regarding a question posted in p.u.p.

David
--
Keeper of the family pets.
"You want fish? I got fish. I got fish, and eels, and turtles, and
snails, and frogs, and dragons and cats..."

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'smokey.jpg' (52 KB)

Preview of image 'smokey.jpg'

David Heys wrote:
> 
> Image posted regarding a question posted in p.u.p.
> 
> David
> --
> Keeper of the family pets.
> "You want fish? I got fish. I got fish, and eels, and turtles, and
> snails, and frogs, and dragons and cats..."
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

I don't know what the question was, but this image is one of the most
interesting things I've seen here. No idea what it is, but who cares? ;)

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Don't read p.u.p, but this image is most intriguing...

--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___     ______________________________
 | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
 |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:

> I don't know what the question was, but this image is one of the most
> interesting things I've seen here. No idea what it is, but who cares? ;)

As to what the scene is.. Well, it's whatever the viewer wants it to be. So
far, I've gotten comments that range from "Gigeresque" to "What's with the
smiling ducks?". <grin> I enjoy the scene and may or may not develop it
more. It's fairly bare, and I kind of like it that way.

The problem I ran into is how the media has turned from white to black at
the end of the light source's fade_distance. I'd originally hoped the media
would fade off as the light did. Instead, the media seemed to inverse its
color from white to black. I'm not sure this is a bug, or just because I
didn't add something somewhere. The media is method 3 scattering.

David
--
Keeper of the family pets.
"You want fish? I got fish. I got fish, and eels, and turtles, and snails,
and frogs, and dragons and cats..."

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:

> Don't read p.u.p, but this image is most intriguing...

Thanks. :{) Intriguing is the kind of comment I always enjoy getting
with my stuff.

David

Post a reply to this message

I tried a few things out to see what you were getting there and I didn't find a
answer.  Think the media really does just darken based on the scattering amount
(color vector) where 0 is none and transparent, >0 is more and darkened.
'extinction' can help but the main thing seems to be that whether you use lights
or not, or a light with or without media effects, the result looks the same.
Maybe something really is wrong.  Who's to say though?
'media' itself isn't really confined to being a 'light_source' affected thing,
it's more like a object than a substance (whatever word describes media).
Although you could almost make it invisible with the right tweaking of
extinction and emission and absorption it wouldn't be very feasible.  The better
thing to try would be to density map your media using a cylindrical pattern
overall with the original pattern as the dense central part and no density at
the outer part.

Bob

"David Heys" <sou### [at] gcinet> wrote in message
news:38922EC4.8F1A5F7F@gci.net...
| Remco de Korte wrote:
|
| > I don't know what the question was, but this image is one of the most
| > interesting things I've seen here. No idea what it is, but who cares? ;)
|
| As to what the scene is.. Well, it's whatever the viewer wants it to be. So
| far, I've gotten comments that range from "Gigeresque" to "What's with the
| smiling ducks?". <grin> I enjoy the scene and may or may not develop it
| more. It's fairly bare, and I kind of like it that way.
|
| The problem I ran into is how the media has turned from white to black at
| the end of the light source's fade_distance. I'd originally hoped the media
| would fade off as the light did. Instead, the media seemed to inverse its
| color from white to black. I'm not sure this is a bug, or just because I
| didn't add something somewhere. The media is method 3 scattering.
|
| David
| --
| Keeper of the family pets.
| "You want fish? I got fish. I got fish, and eels, and turtles, and snails,
| and frogs, and dragons and cats..."
|
|

Post a reply to this message

Yea, I started playing with extinction as well, after having a conversation with
Peter (Popov) over ICQ. Setting it to 0 works, but makes the fade off of the white
media a bit crisp. Guess I'll play some more with the settings. It'd help to
understand the why's of this though. ie, why the media continues so strongly past
the fade_distance of the light source and why it's color inverts.

David

Bob Hughes wrote:

> I tried a few things out to see what you were getting there and I didn't find a
> answer.  Think the media really does just darken based on the scattering amount
> (color vector) where 0 is none and transparent, >0 is more and darkened.
> 'extinction' can help but the main thing seems to be that whether you use lights
> or not, or a light with or without media effects, the result looks the same.
> Maybe something really is wrong.  Who's to say though?
> 'media' itself isn't really confined to being a 'light_source' affected thing,
> it's more like a object than a substance (whatever word describes media).
> Although you could almost make it invisible with the right tweaking of
> extinction and emission and absorption it wouldn't be very feasible.  The better
> thing to try would be to density map your media using a cylindrical pattern
> overall with the original pattern as the dense central part and no density at
> the outer part.

Post a reply to this message

In trying to help someone over in the moray.win group I found that scaling media
and it's container object doesn't seem the same as before.  I used to be able to
scale one up and the other down, vice versa too, so that it equaled out for
various sizes.  Either I'm doing something wrong or maybe it's not like it used
to be.

Bob

"David Heys" <sou### [at] gcinet> wrote in message
news:3892510E.168C7124@gci.net...
| Yea, I started playing with extinction as well, after having a conversation
with
| Peter (Popov) over ICQ. Setting it to 0 works, but makes the fade off of the
white
| media a bit crisp. Guess I'll play some more with the settings. It'd help to
| understand the why's of this though. ie, why the media continues so strongly
past
| the fade_distance of the light source and why it's color inverts.
|
| David
|
| Bob Hughes wrote:
|
| > I tried a few things out to see what you were getting there and I didn't
find a
| > answer.  Think the media really does just darken based on the scattering
amount
| > (color vector) where 0 is none and transparent, >0 is more and darkened.
| > 'extinction' can help but the main thing seems to be that whether you use
lights
| > or not, or a light with or without media effects, the result looks the same.
| > Maybe something really is wrong.  Who's to say though?
| > 'media' itself isn't really confined to being a 'light_source' affected
thing,
| > it's more like a object than a substance (whatever word describes media).
| > Although you could almost make it invisible with the right tweaking of
| > extinction and emission and absorption it wouldn't be very feasible.  The
better
| > thing to try would be to density map your media using a cylindrical pattern
| > overall with the original pattern as the dense central part and no density
at
| > the outer part.
|
|
|

Post a reply to this message

"David Heys" <sou### [at] gcinet> wrote in message
news:389### [at] gcinet...
> Image posted regarding a question posted in p.u.p.

Whatever your problems is, i dont care, that thing at the bottom with the
leaking somthing is way cool.

Rick

Post a reply to this message

Rick [Kitty5] wrote:

> Whatever your problems is, i dont care, that thing at the bottom with the
> leaking somthing is way cool.

Grin. Thanks. It's just a clipped sphere with a light under it. But I do like
the scene as-is. I'm going to leave this the way it is, and take some
elements from here  and put them into another scene. Not sure what yet. It's
still brewing in my head.

David
--
Keeper of the family pets.
"You want fish? I got fish. I got fish, and eels, and turtles, and snails,
and frogs, and dragons and cats..."

Post a reply to this message