Chris Huff wrote:

> Try playing with the brilliance value in finish, decreasing
> ambient(which probably acts something like emission media), and giving
> some transparence to the color(like decreasing extinction in media).

I think maybe increasing the ambient will give it the appearance of being less
dense, as well as lowering the diffuse.


> The brilliance will vary the amount of "scattering" dependant on angle. At
> least, I think it should, it has in my other tests of this sort.

Good idea.


--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

You know what, this is actually the perfect density for cotton candy :)

I think this image will cause me to begin toying with isosurfaces...

Post a reply to this message

In article <38F3E638.AC081566@aol.com>, "SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> 
wrote:

> I think maybe increasing the ambient will give it the appearance of being 
> less dense, as well as lowering the diffuse.

My reasoning was that ambient makes it visible without light falling on 
it, similar to emitting media.


> > The brilliance will vary the amount of "scattering" dependant on angle. 
> > At least, I think it should, it has in my other tests of this sort.
> 
> Good idea.

Hmm, turns out that because of the different directions the surfaces 
point in(I used planar surfaces in my experiments), the results are not 
always what you expect. I had some interesting results by placing a 
light_source right in the middle of the smoke, though...

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> My reasoning was that ambient makes it visible without light falling on
> it, similar to emitting media.

Yes, I know what you were getting at, and you are right. I used just the right
ambient to make the smoke look like it's disappearing. It only works good if
the ambient value matches the objects behind the smoke.


> Hmm, turns out that because of the different directions the surfaces
> point in(I used planar surfaces in my experiments), the results are not
> always what you expect. I had some interesting results by placing a
> light_source right in the middle of the smoke, though...

I had interesting results too, but not very realistic. Perhaps a spherical
pigment with high ambient values can be translated on the isosurface where the
light_source is to produce a more realistic effect. It would be cheating in a
way, but it would probably look good.


--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:04:22 -0700 "SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>//*************Code!

  Hi, Samuel. Very nice work. Can you tell me what camera and lighting
settings you used for your scene?

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

Hello Alan. I don't have the original code any longer. Sorry! I can only
guess at what I used. Try something like this:

camera{location<0,5,-10> look_at 0 rotate y*-35}

light_source{<200, 100, -50>,1}

P.S. You're a member of the Pov Team, aren't you? I'm sure I've said this
before: thank you all very much! Pov is *the* best program I have ever
used. Allowing everyone to access the code and change it has helped it
become even better.



Alan Kong wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:04:22 -0700 "SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> >//*************Code!
>
>   Hi, Samuel. Very nice work. Can you tell me what camera and lighting
> settings you used for your scene?
>
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:18:11 -0700 "SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>Sorry! I can only guess at what I used. Try something like this:

>camera{location<0,5,-10> look_at 0 rotate y*-35}
>light_source{<200, 100, -50>,1}

  Thanks, Samuel. Earlier, I placed a camera and lightsource in your
scene and it rendered nicely but not nearly as nice as your originally
posted image, hence the reason I was curious. No sweat, just trying to
keep from getting too rusty...

>Pov is *the* best program I have ever
>used. Allowing everyone to access the code and change it has helped it
>become even better.

  It's very gratifying to the POV-Team when people come up with novel
ways to use both the official version and MegaPOV. First, it gives
others inspiration to keep creating new images and it also vindicates
the use of the various patches that people write for the benefit of
others. Thanks for your participation.

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message