 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, these are really volume clouds this time. I stumbled on the
technique today (goofing around at work). I was playing with
motion_blur, finding ways to exploit its properties. On a whim I decided
to add the clock value to the threshold of an isosurface. To my
surprise, it appeared to have volumetric properties. I kept on prodding,
amazed it was actually creating shadows and stuff. I went with it, until
I got the render you see before you. I didn't add the clouds to a plane
density, since it increases the render time.
What do you all think? Do these clouds have promise? I already know the
answer to that question :) They render faster than media, according to
my limited comparison studies. I'd like to see somebody with more mhz do
something with them. This image took 30 minutes and 49 seconds on my
P166 mhz without aa.
//*************Code!
global_settings{ motion_blur 20,1 }
background{<.4 .6 .8>}
#declare Tex=function{pigment{bumps scale .5 turbulence .25
color_map{[.5 rgb 1][1 rgb 0]}}}
motion_blur{
isosurface{
function Tex(x,y,z)+.1
threshold .5+clock sign 1
accuracy .01 method 2 eval
contained_by{box{-1,1}}
pigment{rgb 1} finish{diffuse .85 ambient<.4 .6 .8>*.35}
double_illuminate
}
}
--
Samuel Benge
E-Mail: STB### [at] aol com
Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
http://members.aol.com/stbenge
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'blur_clouds.jpg' (11 KB)
Preview of image 'blur_clouds.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Promising, no doubt! But what happens when the clouds cover the entire sky?
Will the isosurface-render drastically slow down? (Of course it will, but
how much?)
One problem is that the clouds look a bit dense; I suppose it is because of
this new "media type" is in principle absorbing, and that the pigment is
simpy white. Adding trasmittance/filter will probably make lighter clouds,
although it might be difficult to adjust the amount correctly. (I think.)
Simen.
>What do you all think? Do these clouds have promise? I already know the
>answer to that question :) They render faster than media, according to
>my limited comparison studies. I'd like to see somebody with more mhz do
>something with them. This image took 30 minutes and 49 seconds on my
>P166 mhz without aa.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What do you all think? Do these clouds have promise?
-Oh my god Holy s**t that is cool
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks great for smoke! Great job!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38F2B256.E12E59E9@aol.com>, "SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> Okay, these are really volume clouds this time. I stumbled on the
> technique today (goofing around at work). I was playing with
> motion_blur, finding ways to exploit its properties. On a whim I decided
> to add the clock value to the threshold of an isosurface. To my
> surprise, it appeared to have volumetric properties. I kept on prodding,
> amazed it was actually creating shadows and stuff. I went with it, until
> I got the render you see before you. I didn't add the clouds to a plane
> density, since it increases the render time.
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). 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.
I never thought of trying motion_blur though(well, I tried it with
isosurfaces, and even used it to control the threshold, but never
thought of doing clouds or smoke)...these might behave differently under
those circumstances.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pabs wrote:
>
> > What do you all think? Do these clouds have promise?
>
> -Oh my god Holy s**t that is cool
my sentiments exactly, this is so very cool. how did you do this again?
source code! source code!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> source code! source code!
it's there on his original message (read the entire thing ;-)
Andre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andre wrote:
>
> > source code! source code!
> it's there on his original message (read the entire thing ;-)
>
> Andre
oh, i guess I was too busy drooling!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simen Kvaal wrote:
> Promising, no doubt! But what happens when the clouds cover the entire sky?
> Will the isosurface-render drastically slow down? (Of course it will, but
> how much?)
A lot. It should still be faster than media, though.
>
> One problem is that the clouds look a bit dense; I suppose it is because of
> this new "media type" is in principle absorbing, and that the pigment is
> simpy white. Adding trasmittance/filter will probably make lighter clouds,
> although it might be difficult to adjust the amount correctly. (I think.)
>
> Simen.
I think if transparency were added to the clouds, they might render even
slower.
This technique is closer to scattering media, I think.
--
Samuel Benge
E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom
Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I'm developing some smoke. Other functions render faster, by the
way.
TonyB wrote:
> Looks great for smoke! Great job!
--
Samuel Benge
E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom
Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
http://members.aol.com/stbenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
