 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi!
Do you guys remember my old Falcon-model? I made a new one. Started right
after Ryan Constantine posted his first version of his X-Wing.
The model isn't finished yet. The quad-laser cannon and the radardish are
temporay objects (just copied from my previous model) and there should be
some pipes from the radardish to the left mandible.
And some colors aren't entirely right.
And (I almost forgot) it has no detail on the bottom.
No bump_maps used. Everything you see is real.
Anyway... Comments are welcome!
Oh, yeah... The stats:
2619 frame level objects
Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
Time For Parse: 3s
Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
GUI-priority: Highest
Render-priority: Lowest
On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Millennium Falcon.jpg' (85 KB)
Preview of image 'Millennium Falcon.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>
> Hi!
> Do you guys remember my old Falcon-model? I made a new one. Started right
> after Ryan Constantine posted his first version of his X-Wing.
>
> The model isn't finished yet. The quad-laser cannon and the radardish are
> temporay objects (just copied from my previous model) and there should be
> some pipes from the radardish to the left mandible.
> And some colors aren't entirely right.
> And (I almost forgot) it has no detail on the bottom.
> No bump_maps used. Everything you see is real.
>
> Anyway... Comments are welcome!
Too shiny.. cut down whatever you're using for highlights. (And/or make
it so that the dirty parts don't have as much highlighting.) Also, the
glare on the front looks decidedly un-SW-like.
Aside from that, though.. it's a VERY impressive model. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Too shiny.. cut down whatever you're using for highlights. (And/or make
> it so that the dirty parts don't have as much highlighting.) Also, the
There are no highlights, except on the glass of the cockpit...
But... My light source has an intensity of about 1.5
Maybe I'll change that, but I'm not sure that's really necessary.
> glare on the front looks decidedly un-SW-like.
Yeah, that's right... Should be more yellowish and simpler.
> Aside from that, though.. it's a VERY impressive model. :D
Tnx!
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Under 10MB memory used... try this with polygons and see if that number remains low!
;-)
Fabulous job of it. Animated in a action scene this detail would suffice pretty well,
don't you
think?
The texturing seems alright to me. It wasn't always so dirtied up if I remember the
movies enough.
Was different during battle parts compared to what it looked like in the Death Star
hangar I
thought.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
good job! care to share textures? it might be educational. what did
you use as a guide? what scale are you using? my xwing is 1 unit = 1
meter which makes the length 12.5 meters. i have the falcon model and
thought about doing this too. how much more detail are you going to
add? did you use a modeller? is anything animatable (landing gear,
radar dish, laser cannons, engine thrust, top hatch, main door)? is the
top surface actually divided into many seperate plates? is that how you
got the localized dirtiness? i've started working on r2d2 as well as
planetary (or death star) explosions. i also plan on modelling the
death star (using sets like the movie; close, far, trench).
> Oh, yeah... The stats:
>
> 2619 frame level objects
> Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> Time For Parse: 3s
> Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> GUI-priority: Highest
> Render-priority: Lowest
> On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
hmmmm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It wasn't always so dirtied up if I remember the movies enough.
no way. it was the dirtiest ship of the movies. the "fastest
hunk-a-junk in the galaxy". the model needs to be dirtier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Do not recall the old but this is nice... The texturing looks good but could
use some tweaking... Some of the dirty/rough spots look off...?
I like it... Keep going...
Hand code...?
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Hi!
> Do you guys remember my old Falcon-model? I made a new one. Started right
> after Ryan Constantine posted his first version of his X-Wing.
>
> The model isn't finished yet. The quad-laser cannon and the radardish are
> temporay objects (just copied from my previous model) and there should be
> some pipes from the radardish to the left mandible.
> And some colors aren't entirely right.
> And (I almost forgot) it has no detail on the bottom.
> No bump_maps used. Everything you see is real.
>
> Anyway... Comments are welcome!
>
> Oh, yeah... The stats:
>
> 2619 frame level objects
> Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> Time For Parse: 3s
> Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> GUI-priority: Highest
> Render-priority: Lowest
> On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
>
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlink net> schreef in berichtnieuws
396EAF27.E36C21CE@earthlink.net...
> Do not recall the old but this is nice... The texturing looks good but
could
You can see the old one on my site.
> use some tweaking... Some of the dirty/rough spots look off...?
Maybe...
I don't know. That's a hard part :-)
> I like it... Keep going...
Tnx
> Hand code...?
Completely hand-coded.
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> schreef in
berichtnieuws 396fb7d6@news.povray.org...
> Under 10MB memory used... try this with polygons and see if that number
remains low! ;-)
It shouldn't be too hard to convert this to polygons. I just have to make a
height_field out of it. There is a post-process filter that does it.
> Fabulous job of it. Animated in a action scene this detail would suffice
pretty well, don't you
> think?
Hmmm... 4h per frame... That's a lot of time. Even at 640*480 it still is
about 3h per frame.
> The texturing seems alright to me. It wasn't always so dirtied up if I
remember the movies enough.
> Was different during battle parts compared to what it looked like in the
Death Star hangar I
> thought.
The model used in A New Hope was much cleaner than that one used in The
Empire Strikes Back.
Unfortunately this was supposed to be a reproduction of te TESB-model.
> Bob
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> schreef in berichtnieuws
396FC40C.27A2008F@yahoo.com...
> > It wasn't always so dirtied up if I remember the movies enough.
>
> no way. it was the dirtiest ship of the movies. the "fastest
> hunk-a-junk in the galaxy". the model needs to be dirtier.
I know, but it's not that simple to do!
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> schreef in berichtnieuws
396FC34C.7356CE12@yahoo.com...
> good job! care to share textures? it might be educational. what did
When it's finished, I'll share the source.
> you use as a guide? what scale are you using? my xwing is 1 unit = 1
I used The Essential Guide Te Vehicles And Vessels and *lots* of pictures
found on the net. I don't really know what scale I'm using. The same scale
I used for my previous model, but I don't think it's an easy-to-convert
scale ... :-(
> meter which makes the length 12.5 meters. i have the falcon model and
> thought about doing this too. how much more detail are you going to
Length is a problem with the Falcon. Some say it's 28m, some say it's 35m
or anything in between...
> add? did you use a modeller? is anything animatable (landing gear,
Purely hand-coded. Nothing is animatable right now. There is no landing
gear and the radar-dish is temporary (but a bit animatable).
> radar dish, laser cannons, engine thrust, top hatch, main door)? is the
The laser-cannons are temporary too. You can set the brightness of the
engines thrust. The tophatch is not animatable. Maybe in the future. The
maindoor isn't even modelled yet.
> top surface actually divided into many seperate plates? is that how you
The armor-plating is there, yes.
> got the localized dirtiness? i've started working on r2d2 as well as
Yep. I used an image-pattern for it.
> planetary (or death star) explosions. i also plan on modelling the
> death star (using sets like the movie; close, far, trench).
Wow. That's a good idea! Looks like StarWars: The POV-Ray Collection is
going to live again!
> > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> >
> > 2619 frame level objects
> > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > Time For Parse: 3s
> > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > GUI-priority: Highest
> > Render-priority: Lowest
> > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
>
>
> how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
> over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> hmmmm...
Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
armor plating)?
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
\On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:38:51 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote...
> > > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> > >
> > > 2619 frame level objects
> > > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > > Time For Parse: 3s
> > > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > > GUI-priority: Highest
> > > Render-priority: Lowest
> > > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
> >
> >
> > how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> > scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
> All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
> parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
>
> > over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> > hmmmm...
> Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
> armor plating)?
The difference in parse time could easily be due to the fact that Ryan
has used patches for the main hull of the X-Wing. Depending on the
subdivision settings used, patch objects can take ages to parse (I speak
from experience :)
I could be wrong, of course <grin>
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger,
This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to *never*
(and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
crappy.Here is what I suggest.
FaintFillLight Main Light
Object
Camera
This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The faint,
"fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can even
leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location. This
will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
that bugs me the most.
H.E. Day
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39705746$1@news.povray.org...
| Bob Hughes <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> schreef in
| berichtnieuws 396fb7d6@news.povray.org...
|
| > Fabulous job of it. Animated in a action scene this detail would suffice
| pretty well, don't you
| > think?
| Hmmm... 4h per frame... That's a lot of time. Even at 640*480 it still is
| about 3h per frame.
You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then. Or use a
tiny, microscopic, resolution.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually the main light is *very* far away :-)
Don't worry, I don't make such mistakes. I know that a sun is very far
away.
It's the intensity of the light that isn't good.
Wait a minute, I'll answer in your text :-)
H. E. Day <Pov### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
01bfee6e$85828540$107889d0@daysix...
> Zeger,
> This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
Tnx!
> Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to
*never*
Wow, a secret, always nice :-)
> (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
I know. I do this only when testing my objects...
> mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> crappy.Here is what I suggest.
Hmmm... Are you saying this render looks crappy?
:-(
> FaintFillLight Main Light
> Object
>
> Camera
>
Wait a minute... You put the main light on the other side of the model...
That way the camera is looking at an unlit side...
That's quite dark, isn't it?
> This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The
faint,
> "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current
main
Ah, like that... I have fill lights, but they are on the other side. (and
also very far away :-)
> light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can
even
> leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
> intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location.
This
> will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
Good idea. I'll try this.
>
> I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> that bugs me the most.
np
Always nice to hear some comments from an expert. Even when they aren't all
that positive.
You see: I rather hear you say it's crap when you mean it, than say it's
good when you don't mean it.
> H.E. Day
> <><
Here's an idea: I give you the model and you turn it into an awesome image.
Whadayasay?
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then. Or
use a
> tiny, microscopic, resolution.
Or let it render while I'm on vacation. When I come back (2 weeks later)
I'll see it has finally reached frame 10 of 100 :-)
> Bob
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H. E. Day <Pov### [at] aolcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
01bfee6e$85828540$107889d0@daysix...
> Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to
*never*
Oh, BTW: by saying it on this NG it's not a secret anymore :-)
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39705665$1@news.povray.org...
> Completely hand-coded.
One word: "Damn."
--
Paul Vanukoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Vanukoff <van### [at] primenetcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
3970bb5c$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> One word: "Damn."
Why? It's a lot easier than using Moray! You can use macros, while-loops
and randomized objects!
> --
> Paul Vanukoff
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
no, you are right. i just finished (for now) converting my xwing files
to plain pov and uploaded them to the star wars pov site. they should
be up soon. in the package is an image with six xwings, all with
different squad colors and numbers and with different dirt, wings open
or closed, canopy open or closed, etc. like most include files, there
are variables that the user declares and then includes the inc.
however, i used two meshes and those are included only once in the
user's scene file. i found that parsing after the first model was only
about 4 or 5 seconds. so the slowdown is due to my meshes and patches.
Jamie Davison wrote:
>
> \On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:38:51 +0200, Zeger Knaepen wrote...
> > > > Oh, yeah... The stats:
> > > >
> > > > 2619 frame level objects
> > > > Peak memory used: 9602538 bytes
> > > > Time For Parse: 3s
> > > > Time For Trace: 4h 40m 14s
> > > > GUI-priority: Highest
> > > > Render-priority: Lowest
> > > > On a PIII 450 with 64 MB RAM under W98SE
> > >
> > >
> > > how did you get your parse time so low with so many objects in the
> > > scene? are there any meshes or patches? my current object count is
> > All CSG. No height_fields, no isosurfaces. I don't know how it can be
> > parsed so fast. I don't really care, actually :-)
> >
> > > over 1300. you've got double that but mine takes 15 sec to parse.
> > > hmmmm...
> > Strange... Maybe becaused I used a lot of loops and some macros (for the
> > armor plating)?
>
> The difference in parse time could easily be due to the fact that Ryan
> has used patches for the main hull of the X-Wing. Depending on the
> subdivision settings used, patch objects can take ages to parse (I speak
> from experience :)
>
> I could be wrong, of course <grin>
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My opinion is to use only a total of rgb 1.5 in lighting on any one surface,
and that means any shadowless fill light counts as being shone upon all
surfaces. Unless of course you are trying for an extrordinary effect or
something.
By saying "total" that would be like 4 lights of color rgb 0.125, rgb 0.125,
rgb 0.25, and rgb 1.0 for example.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
what do you know, that's pretty much the way i lit my last scene. i
used light groups via megapov. the sun was the main light and affected
all objects. and there is a fill between the planet and the xwing that
only affects the xwing. i've studied photography a little and i
recommend it to anyone creating images in any medium. your advice is
sound mr. day. however, model showcases are the exception to this rule
of thumb wouldn't you agree? scenes deserve great lighting but when
showing off of models there should be enough light to see by. because
of the stars, i'd say this was a scene.
"H. E. Day" wrote:
>
> Zeger,
> This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
> Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to *never*
> (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
> mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> crappy.Here is what I suggest.
>
> FaintFillLight Main Light
> Object
>
> Camera
>
> This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The faint,
> "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
> light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can even
> leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
> intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location. This
> will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
>
> I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> that bugs me the most.
>
> H.E. Day
> <><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh, and i always use radiosity for final renders. if you think the
underlying color of my xwing isn't white enough (and if you look at the
texture in moray it is very white), you should see it without radiosity.
besides, the shadows just seem better to me than low-intensity fill
lights do.
ryan constantine wrote:
>
> what do you know, that's pretty much the way i lit my last scene. i
> used light groups via megapov. the sun was the main light and affected
> all objects. and there is a fill between the planet and the xwing that
> only affects the xwing. i've studied photography a little and i
> recommend it to anyone creating images in any medium. your advice is
> sound mr. day. however, model showcases are the exception to this rule
> of thumb wouldn't you agree? scenes deserve great lighting but when
> showing off of models there should be enough light to see by. because
> of the stars, i'd say this was a scene.
>
> "H. E. Day" wrote:
> >
> > Zeger,
> > This is a wonderful model. The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
> > Let me share a secret with you. The secret to great lighting is to *never*
> > (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
> > mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> > crappy.Here is what I suggest.
> >
> > FaintFillLight Main Light
> > Object
> >
> > Camera
> >
> > This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well. The faint,
> > "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
> > light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> > other side of the model. Also, bring it closer to the front. You can even
> > leave the intensity at 1.5. Or, alternatively, you could change the
> > intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location. This
> > will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
> >
> > I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> > that bugs me the most.
> >
> > H.E. Day
> > <><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most excellent... My applause... I wish my hand codes were as detailed as
you have done here... =)
> > I like it... Keep going...
> Tnx
>
> > Hand code...?
> Completely hand-coded.
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In 14 days you should get about eighty frames done at 4hrs/frame...
Try 320X240... Usually makes a good movie size...?
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> >
> > You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then. Or
> use a
> > tiny, microscopic, resolution.
> Or let it render while I'm on vacation. When I come back (2 weeks later)
> I'll see it has finally reached frame 10 of 100 :-)
>
> > Bob
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
39713596.7DE43352@earthlink.net...
> In 14 days you should get about eighty frames done at 4hrs/frame...
> Try 320X240... Usually makes a good movie size...?
You've actually been calculating it? :-)
How bored can you be :-)
320*240 is small. I would go for at least 400*300.
But you forgot one thing: when doing an animation, it would probably fly
close by the camera. A close-up won't render that 'fast'.
But, then again: there would be frames where the falcon looks like 2 pixels
:-)
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No not that bored... That is just my usual setting for an animation... Fair
resolution w/ fair speed ratio... Also minimal size for posting a still... Not
very detail sensitive although... =(
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> You've actually been calculating it? :-)
> How bored can you be :-)
> 320*240 is small. I would go for at least 400*300.
>
> But you forgot one thing: when doing an animation, it would probably fly
> close by the camera. A close-up won't render that 'fast'.
> But, then again: there would be frames where the falcon looks like 2 pixels
> :-)
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found out how long patch objects take to parse when I was doing test
renders of my yet-to-be-finished Pod House. 740+ objects took about 3
hours to parse, followed by just over one hour to render. I'm trying to
figure out how to best replace as many of them with things like height
fields. Hopfully that will yeld more reasonable parse/render times.
Ken Matassa
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
wow! 3 hours! i would've done something about it a long time ago. good
luck with your conversions!
Ken Matassa wrote:
>
> I found out how long patch objects take to parse when I was doing test
> renders of my yet-to-be-finished Pod House. 740+ objects took about 3
> hours to parse, followed by just over one hour to render. I'm trying to
> figure out how to best replace as many of them with things like height
> fields. Hopfully that will yeld more reasonable parse/render times.
>
> Ken Matassa
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
3973C6F0.E299513B@earthlink.net...
> No not that bored... That is just my usual setting for an animation...
Fair
> resolution w/ fair speed ratio... Also minimal size for posting a still...
Not
> very detail sensitive although... =(
Have you ever posted a still of 320*240? For an animation it might be ok,
but for a still?
I don't know...
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes when i am testing for feed back... I usually don't spend too much time on
test renders until i am done with and am satisfied with the main body of the
image... I then add detail or suggestions if i receive any.., Then if i am
really into the image or want to see finer overall detail i expand the rez...
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3973C6F0.E299513B@earthlink.net...
> > No not that bored... That is just my usual setting for an animation...
> Fair
> > resolution w/ fair speed ratio... Also minimal size for posting a still...
> Not
> > very detail sensitive although... =(
> Have you ever posted a still of 320*240? For an animation it might be ok,
> but for a still?
> I don't know...
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
True but as someone who uses moray almost exclusively, but with an
understanding of Pov-Ray code, I can tell you that Moray REALLY helps when it
comes to things like scene composition and visualization, it helps you make
good use of the available camera view:-)
Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> Paul Vanukoff <van### [at] primenetcom> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3970bb5c$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> > One word: "Damn."
> Why? It's a lot easier than using Moray! You can use macros, while-loops
> and randomized objects!
>
> > --
> > Paul Vanukoff
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf
--
Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
