"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39BFE9A2.80DD1D36@yahoo.com...
|
| brilliance was either 1 or 2.  might 'metallic->influence' have
| something to do with this?  the angle of reflection is whatever the
| angle is between the light that bounces near the shadow toward the
| camera.  which affects reflection or highlight angle most; diffuse,
| brilliance, or spec. highlight?

metallic isn't going to make a whole lot of difference about the brighter
region; it's the specular and granite normal doing it, I'm fairly positive,
because it's allowing the highlight to reach around the curvature more than
a non-normal surface would.
As I understand things the brilliance isn't going to show according to light
sources but rather from camera viewpoint, just don't take my word for it
though.

| > And that light with color*2 isn't helping matters I'm
| > sure.
|
| do you think i should change the light to just 'color'?

It's almost certainly making the highlight spread farther, appear brighter,
but that isn't really what's at the root of it.  Must be the specular
highlight and normal.  Chances are that you'll have to drop the bump size
down even more than it already is.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:39BFEB81.4FD74A93@yahoo.com...
| good point, but i hadn't thought about where he is.  and isn't one sun
| red?  although it doesn't show up in the lighting in the movies.  i
| never noticed two shadows for anything in the movies.  at some points in
| the yearly orbit, one sun probably eclipses the other.

They were both yellow G type suns like our solar system Sun.  The reddened
one you're thinking of was lower on the horizon than the other.  Oddly
enough the closer zoom view shown after that one has them both as very much
yellow and no longer a red one.
I'm going by the movie though, not the story itself so I could be way off.
They should have orbited each other at a rate of around several days not in
months or years.  So the planet orbit to make for a eclipse isn't needed but
that would have been the only possibility for a eclipse if the two suns
revolved in a plane not on the planets ecliptic of course.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Yes, by all means use the variable reflection! It's not completely
realistic, but it is much better then flat reflectivity (heh). I think R2's
roughness is excessive. .001 might work better, but certainly your specular
setting will have to change as well. This will bring more metal feeling in
too. I think a reflection_min of eight-tenths to nine-tenths of your current
reflection (as reflection_max) will make you happy. Reflection_blur will
probably not satisfy you. JMHO

Hey, another scene to toy with shall always be graciously accepted! :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

That is a really great rendering.  From the sand to the colors to the
textures.  Just great!

	And I think the problem with the shadow line is POV's problem.  You
see, in real life a light source will illuminate a surface less
efficiently the farther it is away from the surface normal.  So, as you
get closer and closer to the shadow line, the intensity of the highlight
should really trail off.  This is a *real physics* effect, but it is
less pronounced on rough surfaces. (like  when the rough bits peek up
over the horizon when everything around it is still in shadow)

	The problem with POV is that neither phong nor specular take this
effect into account, only diffuse does. (I don't know about Blinn...)

	Another *real physics* effect that you have some control over is the
size of the sun.  If you're not using an area light for the sun, I'd
suggest one.  On the earth, the sun's diameter takes up about 2 degrees
of the sky.  It really does have an effect if you look at the edges of
shadows cast by buildings and tree leaves, etc.  Maybe it would smooth
the shadow out over a couple of degrees around R2's dome.

BTW great render and great model!

In Him,
Ben

Post a reply to this message

which flavor would you prefer i post?  would you like it after i make my
first attempt at the new textures?  should be thursday night at the
latest.

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Yes, by all means use the variable reflection! It's not completely
> realistic, but it is much better then flat reflectivity (heh). I think R2's
> roughness is excessive. .001 might work better, but certainly your specular
> setting will have to change as well. This will bring more metal feeling in
> too. I think a reflection_min of eight-tenths to nine-tenths of your current
> reflection (as reflection_max) will make you happy. Reflection_blur will
> probably not satisfy you. JMHO
> 
> Hey, another scene to toy with shall always be graciously accepted! :)
> 
> Grim

Post a reply to this message

any suggestions for size and placement of the sun?  i'm using 1 unit = 1
meter.

Ben Birdsey wrote:
> 
>         That is a really great rendering.  From the sand to the colors to the
> textures.  Just great!
> 
>         And I think the problem with the shadow line is POV's problem.  You
> see, in real life a light source will illuminate a surface less
> efficiently the farther it is away from the surface normal.  So, as you
> get closer and closer to the shadow line, the intensity of the highlight
> should really trail off.  This is a *real physics* effect, but it is
> less pronounced on rough surfaces. (like  when the rough bits peek up
> over the horizon when everything around it is still in shadow)
> 
>         The problem with POV is that neither phong nor specular take this
> effect into account, only diffuse does. (I don't know about Blinn...)
> 
>         Another *real physics* effect that you have some control over is the
> size of the sun.  If you're not using an area light for the sun, I'd
> suggest one.  On the earth, the sun's diameter takes up about 2 degrees
> of the sky.  It really does have an effect if you look at the edges of
> shadows cast by buildings and tree leaves, etc.  Maybe it would smooth
> the shadow out over a couple of degrees around R2's dome.
> 
> BTW great render and great model!
> 
> In Him,
> Ben

Post a reply to this message

By all means, take your time. I've got plenty to toy with :)

Flavor?

Grim

Post a reply to this message

ryan constantine wrote:
> 
> any suggestions for size and placement of the sun?  i'm using 1 unit = 1
> meter.
> 

Some time ago, we came to Diameter/Distance = 1/100 
(in Thread Radiosity test #2)

Of course this is only true for our local sun :-)

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Ben Birdsey" <cla### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:39C05E87.2C284B3D@netscape.net...
|
| Another *real physics* effect that you have some control over is the
| size of the sun.  If you're not using an area light for the sun, I'd
| suggest one.  On the earth, the sun's diameter takes up about 2 degrees
| of the sky.  It really does have an effect if you look at the edges of
| shadows cast by buildings and tree leaves, etc.  Maybe it would smooth
| the shadow out over a couple of degrees around R2's dome.

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible.  Area lights only effect shadows
as they fall onto other objects not the object creating the shadow.  I'm
sure many people have tried many times to get a area light to do this and
found the same thing.  Seems they will only affect the shadow which is cast
away from the object.  And the highlights don't change whether from point
sources or area lights either, same goes for the diffuse too I guess.  So
any such attempt is probably futile.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

flavor: moray or povray?

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> By all means, take your time. I've got plenty to toy with :)
> 
> Flavor?
> 
> Grim

Post a reply to this message