 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
after robots, building !
yes, not very original but I wanted to see if once again, it is possible
to make a picture with "the same" quality.
I think it is !! but it is long.
very poor model (I'm not a 3d artist), radiosity, no light, 3h53m on a
K6-2 400MHz with only 32Mo of RAM.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'skyrad - batiment.jpg' (93 KB)
Preview of image 'skyrad - batiment.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
after the experiments i did, i also believe that povray can achive 'arnold',
however its a long painfull process to get it just right!!
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If I had seen something like this several years ago my jaw would have
dropped. Too bad it's not years ago. :-)
I haven't seen this "Arnold" thing people keep mentioning, should I go look
for it?
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What is arnold?????? Nice model though...
gemelli david wrote:
> after robots, building !
> yes, not very original but I wanted to see if once again, it is possible
> to make a picture with "the same" quality.
> I think it is !! but it is long.
>
> very poor model (I'm not a 3d artist), radiosity, no light, 3h53m on a
> K6-2 400MHz with only 32Mo of RAM.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Psychomek wrote:
>
> What is arnold?????? Nice model though...
A radiosity/raytracing engine (monte-carlo kind) intended as
an extension to modellers such as 3DSmax, and, acoording to authors,
makes radiosity quick enough to be used in production (but they don't
give render times, so...).
http://www.3dluvr.com/pepeland/
I can't be too much wrong predicting this is gonna be, once it's
released, the most sought-after warez for max users...
(the current winner in that category being Mental Ray; hey, they
are just discovering soft shadows, monte-carlo radiosity, and
caustics, they are highly excited !!)
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> after the experiments i did, i also believe that povray can achive 'arnold',
> however its a long painfull process to get it just right!!
>
Actually, the parameters recently provided by MikeH, XPlo and TonyB seem to work
in a good number of situations, and quite fast too. Here are two experiments
with no "real" light sources and a sky sphere. The orientation of the light is
given by a gradient of the sky sphere pigment, such as :
sky_sphere{pigment{gradient x poly_wave 0.5 color_map{[0 White*1.3][1
SkyColor*0.5]} translate -x*0.5 scale 2}}
I do the tests with a low count (30) and render with something like 300. Both
images took approximately 15 min on a PIII 733.
G.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'testrad9.jpg' (35 KB)
Download 'testskull.jpg' (21 KB)
Preview of image 'testrad9.jpg'
Preview of image 'testskull.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The image of the skulls is really cool, and the way it blends with the photographic
background shows that the calculations are at least somewhat accurate.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MikeH wrote:
> The image of the skulls is really cool, and the way it blends with the photographic
> background shows that the calculations are at least somewhat accurate.
In fact, I tried to micmic the first of the skull renderings in the lightwave
gallery.
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/zoompages/skulls.html
Megapov does a fairly good job I'd say. This is more promising than I ever thought it
would be. One nice thing would be the possibility of having highlights without real
lights, something like light_source{<blah,blah,blah> color Blah highlights_only}.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Where can I find these parameters ? It seems I didn't saw this...
I'm generally using for final radiosity rendering:
count 200
nearest_count 6
recursion_limit 2
error_bound 0.4
is that too low ? too high ?
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fnaa! Fnaa! <thud> Ooooh.... my head... That looks very cool Gilles. Please
post the source code. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> One nice thing would be the possibility of having highlights without real
> lights, something like light_source{<blah,blah,blah> color Blah
highlights_only}.
That can be done with light_groups. I used them to get highlights in my
image. Have you done any experiments involving reflection in the finish?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > One nice thing would be the possibility of having highlights without real
> > lights, something like light_source{<blah,blah,blah> color Blah
> highlights_only}.
>
> That can be done with light_groups. I used them to get highlights in my
> image. Have you done any experiments involving reflection in the finish?
Can you post a sample ?
I always thought you can only control how whole objects are affected by the
lights, not the singls aspects of the finish, but it would be nice, if i'm
wrong. :-)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That can be done with light_groups. I used them to get highlights in my
> image. Have you done any experiments involving reflection in the finish?
Reflection has strange results (see post: "Radiosity (Yes, again)" 7/08/00)
on the ground, shadow looks bad (round shape). But it isn't visible on the
objects.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> Fnaa! Fnaa! <thud> Ooooh.... my head... That looks very cool Gilles. Please
> post the source code. :)
Wish granted. Scenes are in p.b.s.f. (without the skull and the image map for
the second). But the radiosity settings are basically yours, so don't expect to
be surprised...
G.
P.S. I can send the skull (originally courtesy of Ken Tyler) to those who can
manage a 1.4 zip file in their mailbox.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> > One nice thing would be the possibility of having highlights without real
> > lights, something like light_source{<blah,blah,blah> color Blah
> highlights_only}.
>
> That can be done with light_groups. I used them to get highlights in my
> image. Have you done any experiments involving reflection in the finish?
I've done experiments with reflection but they're much better when a light is
involved.
About light_groups, I'm not familiar with them but it's certainly an
interesting solution. My idea, though, was to keep the light from lighting
(sounds stupid I know) so that that I don't have to play with a zillion
settings to get the object right in the cases where radiosity alone does the
job qiuckly and smoothly (as seen in my test images). For instance, I'd love to
do a street scene where the only light would be from a very white, deep cloud
layer. For the time being, though, area lights and light_groups will have to
do.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Can you post a sample ?
Basically, this is what I'm doing. The light won't affect the plane, but it
will highlight the ball.
light_source {<1,1,-1>*10 1 groups "walla"}
plane {y,0 pigment {rgb 1} light_group "!walla"}
sphere {y,1 pigment {red 1} finish {phong 1}}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've done experiments with reflection but they're much better when a light
is
> involved.
All my work shows splotches (as visible under the shoes).
> About light_groups, I'm not familiar with them but it's certainly an
> interesting solution. My idea, though, was to keep the light from lighting
I don't get it. What is it that you want and don't want the light to do?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > Can you post a sample ?
>
> Basically, this is what I'm doing. The light won't affect the plane, but it
> will highlight the ball.
>
> light_source {<1,1,-1>*10 1 groups "walla"}
> plane {y,0 pigment {rgb 1} light_group "!walla"}
> sphere {y,1 pigment {red 1} finish {phong 1}}
This i knew, but it would not work with radiosity in the way Gilles wanted it
(if i understood him right).
It would need some light_group support for the finish-statement like:
finish {
diffuse 0.6 light_group "!lg1"
specular 0.3 light_group "lg1"
}
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Those are the strangest speakers I've ever seen...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks kinda splotchy, maybe you should up the count >;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39B3BAF3.BB62D6C2@inapg.inra.fr>, Gilles Tran
<tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> One nice thing would be the possibility of having highlights without
> real lights, something like light_source{<blah,blah,blah> color Blah
> highlights_only}.
How does this syntax look?
light_source {POSITION, COLOR, etc...
specular |on|off|
phong |on|off|
diffuse |on|off|
shadowless |on|off|
etc...
}
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 07:28:29 -0500, Bob Hughes wrote:
>If I had seen something like this several years ago my jaw would have
>dropped. Too bad it's not years ago. :-)
>
>I haven't seen this "Arnold" thing people keep mentioning, should I go look
>for it?
I've never heard of it untill TonyB's posting of the shoes and St Nick.
Someone give us a URL.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
8:48pm up 14 days, 1:06, 3 users, load average: 1.16, 1.10, 1.08
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about 3? :)
http://www.pepeland.com/
http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/
http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/morearni/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> How does this syntax look?
> light_source {POSITION, COLOR, etc...
> specular |on|off|
> phong |on|off|
> diffuse |on|off|
> shadowless |on|off|
> etc...
> }
The problem is that shadowless lights don't give highlights...
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
> > About light_groups, I'm not familiar with them but it's certainly an
> > interesting solution. My idea, though, was to keep the light from lighting
>
> I don't get it. What is it that you want and don't want the light to do?
As far as my tests go (which doesn't mean much), these "good" radiosity settings
work very well when all objects are given something like ambient 0 diffuse 1.
The problem is that the absence of highlights give all the objects the same dull
plastic look. To get those, real lights are necessary, but then I have to
balance the finishes differently to compensate for the additional lights. All
I'd need would be a light source able to create highlights without contributing
to the scene luminosity and render time. Anyway, it's just an idea, and there's
still a lot to investigate with the current settings.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Look under "Radiosity" in the MegaPov Help file.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:59:06 -0500, Tony[B] wrote:
>How about 3? :)
>
>http://www.pepeland.com/
>http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/
>http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/morearni/
Thanks Tony I'll have a look at these.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
12:34pm up 14 days, 16:52, 2 users, load average: 1.29, 1.19, 1.08
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39B4A40A.1D02BD98@inapg.inra.fr>, Gilles Tran
<tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
> The problem is that shadowless lights don't give highlights...
They do now, but this syntax doesn't exist now(though some bits of it
do). There is no reason shadowless lights *can't* give highlights, that
was just a design choice which can be changed if/when this syntax is
added.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> "Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > > About light_groups, I'm not familiar with them but it's certainly an
> > > interesting solution. My idea, though, was to keep the light from lighting
> >
> > I don't get it. What is it that you want and don't want the light to do?
>
> As far as my tests go (which doesn't mean much), these "good" radiosity settings
> work very well when all objects are given something like ambient 0 diffuse 1.
> The problem is that the absence of highlights give all the objects the same dull
> plastic look. To get those, real lights are necessary, but then I have to
> balance the finishes differently to compensate for the additional lights. All
> I'd need would be a light source able to create highlights without contributing
> to the scene luminosity and render time.
Probably not possible to avoid an increase in render time until the day
that radiosity can produce highlights.. but have you considered using a
very dim light, and setting your highlights really high (say, "specular 10")?
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >http://www.pepeland.com/
> >http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/
> >http://www.3dluvr.com/marcosss/morearni/
It's now been commercially released as "messiah:render",
assuming it's the same "Arnold".
See http://www.projectmessiah.com/news_frames.htm
Regards, Myles.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tony[B]
Subject: Re: Arnold's like part 2 - commercial release
Date: 6 Sep 2000 09:44:29
Message: <39b64a3d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought it was funny for two radiosity projects to have the same name. Oh,
well, too bad for us poor POVers, eh? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Folks,
Here's my version of Gilles' image, with highlights.
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Probably not possible to avoid an increase in render time until the day
> that radiosity can produce highlights.. but have you considered using a
> very dim light, and setting your highlights really high (say, "specular 10")?
>
> -Xplo
This is the method I used; a large area light with a luminosity of 0.01
and a specular value of 80 in the finish.
Bye for now,
Mike Andrews.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'testrad9.jpg' (30 KB)
Preview of image 'testrad9.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
