I buckled down and tried something truly bizarre and
unthinkable--photorealism!

Lemme know what you think!

It's supposed to be a shallow swimming pool.  Done with mega 0.4

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'water28.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'water28.jpg'

The abstract look to this makes it difficult to compare to an actual swimming
pool, especially considering there would be so many different thoughts on what
one would look like with there being such a variety.  The tiles are what I would
expect to see only along the upper edge if anywhere.
What I wondered most, where is the dappled light on the bottom of the pool if
this were outdoors in sunshine.  So it looks like an indoor pool to me.  If
there is 'photons' being applied in this I can't discern so.
Sorry if I sound only skeptical.

Bob

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
news:38d55290@news.povray.org...
| I buckled down and tried something truly bizarre and
| unthinkable--photorealism!
|
| Lemme know what you think!
|
| It's supposed to be a shallow swimming pool.  Done with mega 0.4
|
|


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Your normal is pretty good, but what are those blue splotches? Is it on the
bottom or on the surface?

ps: you should try to experiment a bit with jpeg-compression, but don't ask
Mark Wagner. :)

sig.

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:

> The abstract look to this makes it difficult to compare to an actual swimming
> pool, especially considering there would be so many different thoughts on what
> one would look like with there being such a variety.  The tiles are what I would
> expect to see only along the upper edge if anywhere.
> What I wondered most, where is the dappled light on the bottom of the pool if
> this were outdoors in sunshine.  So it looks like an indoor pool to me.  If
> there is 'photons' being applied in this I can't discern so.
> Sorry if I sound only skeptical.
>

Yeah, the tiles aren't too much like a real pool.  The blue splotches are an
intentional effect from the noise3d pattern.

Point well taken on the artistic effect, but I think it's more a case of technical
overkill than omission. Here is the same scene with a white plane instead of my
tiles.  I either used caustics only or refleciton only with my photons. (Smaller
kbbu's this time!)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'causticsonly.jpg' (29 KB) Download 'reflectiononly.jpg' (19 KB)

Preview of image 'causticsonly.jpg'

Preview of image 'reflectiononly.jpg'

The blue one has me lost but the gray(?) one looks much more like light shining
onto a surface below another.  Either that or I'm seeing it like I know I ought
to be seeing it.

Bob

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-)56590\""@aol.c;-)om> wrote in message
news:38d65fee@news.povray.org...
| Bob Hughes wrote:
|
| > The abstract look to this makes it difficult to compare to an actual
swimming
| > pool, especially considering there would be so many different thoughts on
what
| > one would look like with there being such a variety.  The tiles are what I
would
| > expect to see only along the upper edge if anywhere.
| > What I wondered most, where is the dappled light on the bottom of the pool
if
| > this were outdoors in sunshine.  So it looks like an indoor pool to me.  If
| > there is 'photons' being applied in this I can't discern so.
| > Sorry if I sound only skeptical.
| >
|
| Yeah, the tiles aren't too much like a real pool.  The blue splotches are an
| intentional effect from the noise3d pattern.
|
| Point well taken on the artistic effect, but I think it's more a case of
technical
| overkill than omission. Here is the same scene with a white plane instead of
my
| tiles.  I either used caustics only or refleciton only with my photons.
(Smaller
| kbbu's this time!)
|
|
|
|


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

They are all basically the same code as the original.

In the blue one, only reflection is active, and one gets a lot of reflection of the
SkyBlue background.

In the pink/gray one, only refraction is active, and one sees the caustics that my
surface puts on the plane underneath it. (It's an ugly pink because I misinterpreted
the meaning of rgbf in my pigment.

I was just proving to myself that photonic refraction and reflection were indeed
active in that first scene.  There are so many things going on that it all gets lost
in the confusion...

Thanks for the advice anyway.

Bob Hughes wrote:

> The blue one has me lost but the gray(?) one looks much more like light shining
> onto a surface below another.  Either that or I'm seeing it like I know I ought
> to be seeing it.
>
> Bob

Post a reply to this message