Oooohhh.  Nice!

--
- Doug Eichenberg
  http://www.getinfo.net/douge
  dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message

>   If the speed is not constant but accelerating, the amount of blur
changes
> as well, but still there's no sharp version of the object (unless it's
most

Right. What I was alluding to...

Cartoon physics aside... adding the 'frozen' objects was a temporary thing.
I suppose I didn't declare the period properly, or did something else silly,
but the blur that resulted from earlier tests was not what I was looking
for. In this scene I cheated, but for the blur I would expect a more elastic
appearance to the collision/motion (and of course non-conformity in the
extents). I will attempt another test over the next few days. I was really
looking forward to an animation, but this is starting to look like a week
long rendering. Particularly, if I finish the scene out the way I had in
mind. I mean after all! A twenty-four hour render is good enough reason for
a post. heh, (j/k)

I did a single element (gold ball) render at 1000 samples and recursion 3,
very low error, half-spheroid lighting, etc. and the result was amazing. I
can't wait to see the finished scene!

I know you could pull this off easy, Warp. :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
> However, I agree with the observations that there would be more substance
in
> the blurs at the high points in the swings due to the slower movements
there
> (that was what was being said before, right?)
>
> Bob
>
>
>

I'm beginning to think that there shouldn't be much blur at all in the scene
as I've set it up. I believe that it should look like the trailing side of
the spheres are blurred slightly, or indefinite. Additionally, there should
be some elastic effects upon the central spheres (which I have ignored for
now). At any rate, I am getting a blurry sphere with leading/trailing blurs.
Not what I wanted?

Grim

Post a reply to this message

"Equiprawn" <equ### [at] tinetie> wrote in message
news:39afe325@news.povray.org...
I'd love to see the code for the texture...
>
> Equiprawn
>
#declare TomsGold = texture { pigment { rgb <1,.875,.575> }
   finish { brilliance 6 diffuse .2285 ambient 0 reflection_type 0
      reflection_max <.75,.6875,.5375> reflection_min
<.7125,.653125,.510625>
      metallic 1 specular .8 roughness 1/120 } }

This is, essentially, T_Gold5E (I think it is) with just minor megapatch
changes. Unless, I made a math error somewhere. ;) I haven't checked it,
'cause it looked good enough.

Grim

Post a reply to this message

David, Steve, wrench = work in progress. Thanks for the input, but I
probably won't be using an isosurface in the final render, either. ;)

"Doug Eichenberg" <dou### [at] nlsnet> wrote in message
news:39b06d68@news.povray.org...
> Oooohhh.  Nice!
>
> --
> - Doug Eichenberg
>   http://www.getinfo.net/douge
>   dou### [at] nlsnet
>
>

Thanks, guys. Doug! :)

Grim

Post a reply to this message

Looks good - but why so long to render? The brief experiments I done with
radiosity do not suggest such long render times - or was it the use of
radiosity for each of the samples required of the motion blur?

GrimDude wrote in message <39af6bb1@news.povray.org>...
>After testing radiosity with this new scene, I'm rather afraid to modify it
>for a hemispherical light source.
>
>I have tried a few variations of motion blur with the system seen here. If,
>anyone can tell me how to more realistically represent acceleration in the
>blur, I would like to hear it!
>
>Compression was not kind.
>
>render time 23hr 34min. 24sec.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <39af6bb1@news.povray.org>, vos### [at] yahoocom says...
> After testing radiosity with this new scene, I'm rather afraid to modify it
> for a hemispherical light source.
> 
> I have tried a few variations of motion blur with the system seen here. If,
> anyone can tell me how to more realistically represent acceleration in the
> blur, I would like to hear it!
> 
> Compression was not kind.
> 
I like the image: it does suggest motion. How to make it more realistic: 
I can't help you there. 
The collisions are near elastic though, if I'm not mistaken. With 
inelastic collisions much energy is dissipated (into heat mostly) and the 
movement decreases rapidly! The fun of these things is that they continue 
for a long time...

-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

I've been using the same global statement from scene to scene. That way all
I have to do is change one value ('distance_maximum') and vary 'count' for
fast or slow renders (testing). 'Inelastic' used a thousand count. Blur
didn't help much for speed with sixty-four samples taken.

Grim

"IMBJR" <imb### [at] imbjrcom> wrote in message news:39b11a0f@news.povray.org...
> Looks good - but why so long to render? The brief experiments I done with
> radiosity do not suggest such long render times - or was it the use of
> radiosity for each of the samples required of the motion blur?
>

Post a reply to this message

"Should" be elastic. If I continue to have the same problem, you will see
what I mean. I couldn't make out, from still shots, which direction the
elements were moving in. Probably my own stupidity (free shot). We'll see.

Grim
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG.141a30f85cb9e6398968f@news.povray.org...
> The collisions are near elastic though, if I'm not mistaken. With
> inelastic collisions much energy is dissipated (into heat mostly) and the
> movement decreases rapidly! The fun of these things is that they continue
> for a long time...
>
> --
> Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

Oops, forgot megapov quit using distance_maximum. So, changing it doesn't do
much :D

Grim

Post a reply to this message