 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
the really bright areas on r2's head goes right up to the shadow line.
why? i don't think it should. plus, the shadow line is rather harsh on
the head as well. i think it should be more gradual. the songle light
source has magnintude of color*2. is that my problem? you can see in
the closeup that only the blue on the head has the sharp shadow, but in
the farther pic, the whole head has the sharp shadow. i need to
decrease my error bound for radiosity. notice a blue chunk is missing
from the middle of his leg. that leg is a negative copy of the right
leg, but the right leg doesn't have that part missing. any ideas why?
also, you can see in the closeup, my original tracks, then my second
version. i have a third version that looks better. any other
comments/suggestions/critisism?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'r2d2messeduptracks.jpg' (112 KB)
Download 'r2d2s33pre3.jpg' (70 KB)
Preview of image 'r2d2messeduptracks.jpg'
Preview of image 'r2d2s33pre3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can't help you with the problems you're describing, I just want to say
that this looks *very* good! At first I wondered which of the images were
the rendered one, and which were from the movie... Then I found out both
were rendered. Keep it up! :-)
Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The first one looks gradual enough to me. The second one is sharp, as you
say. This might be due to the brilliance value you used. I can't help you
with the rest. Sorry. Good work. I hope you get it just right. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
news:39BFC330.499E0C1D@yahoo.com...
| the really bright areas on r2's head goes right up to the shadow line.
| notice a blue chunk is missing
| from the middle of his leg. that leg is a negative copy of the right
| leg, but the right leg doesn't have that part missing. any ideas why?
The shadow line is most likely caused by a combination of three things in
the finish: diffuse, brilliance, and specular highlighting. In this case it
looks like the highlight is the culprit most of all, along with a possible
negative brilliance. And that light with color*2 isn't helping matters I'm
sure. The strangest thing there is the plate where the electronic eye (?)
is. Looks like a reflection but doesn't make any sense to me.
The missing part might be either translated wrong, such as not remaining
attached, or perhaps it really is a flaw in the type of part. I can only
speculate, something I do best.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
First I want to say that these images are *incredible*...
Again :-)
I had similar problems once (about 4 years ago) when I was making my first
Liberator-model (from Blake's 7. I lost that version. Harddisk crash.
Lost three years of work :-(
I solved it by using the phong-highlights instead of specular.
Hope this helps...
Your images remind me that I should finish my Falcon-model :-)
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
http://zknaepen.freeservers.com
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> schreef in berichtnieuws
39BFC330.499E0C1D@yahoo.com...
> the really bright areas on r2's head goes right up to the shadow line.
> why? i don't think it should. plus, the shadow line is rather harsh on
> the head as well. i think it should be more gradual. the songle light
> source has magnintude of color*2. is that my problem? you can see in
> the closeup that only the blue on the head has the sharp shadow, but in
> the farther pic, the whole head has the sharp shadow. i need to
> decrease my error bound for radiosity. notice a blue chunk is missing
> from the middle of his leg. that leg is a negative copy of the right
> leg, but the right leg doesn't have that part missing. any ideas why?
> also, you can see in the closeup, my original tracks, then my second
> version. i have a third version that looks better. any other
> comments/suggestions/critisism?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine wrote:
>
> the really bright areas on r2's head goes right up to the shadow line.
> why? i don't think it should. plus, the shadow line is rather harsh on
> the head as well. i think it should be more gradual. the songle light
> source has magnintude of color*2. is that my problem? you can see in
> the closeup that only the blue on the head has the sharp shadow, but in
> the farther pic, the whole head has the sharp shadow. i need to
> decrease my error bound for radiosity. notice a blue chunk is missing
> from the middle of his leg. that leg is a negative copy of the right
> leg, but the right leg doesn't have that part missing. any ideas why?
> also, you can see in the closeup, my original tracks, then my second
> version. i have a third version that looks better. any other
> comments/suggestions/critisism?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image] [Image]
(hopelessly geeky suggestion follows)
If R2 is on Tatooine, then at certain times of the day he would have
two shadows from the binary suns. Would this help with the shading
problems?
http://www.starwars.com/locations/tatooine-iv/
Adam C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The shadow line is most likely caused by a combination of three things in
> the finish: diffuse, brilliance, and specular highlighting. In this case it
> looks like the highlight is the culprit most of all, along with a possible
> negative brilliance.
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?
> And that light with color*2 isn't helping matters I'm
> sure.
do you think i should change the light to just 'color'?
> The strangest thing there is the plate where the electronic eye (?)
> is. Looks like a reflection but doesn't make any sense to me.
yes, that is because the main square part surrounding the eye is curved
the same as his head, but the rectangle to the right (r2d2's left) of
the eye frame (which is also blue) is actually rectangle, so the two
surfaces react differently to the same light. the abrupt change occurs
where the surfaces change.
> The missing part might be either translated wrong, such as not remaining
> attached, or perhaps it really is a flaw in the type of part. I can only
> speculate, something I do best.
i'll have to take a look at the other side again. i haven't done
renders of that side since the last time i posted, so i could've messed
something up and not known it.
thanks for the input.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Adam Coffman wrote:
>
> ryan constantine wrote:
> >
> > the really bright areas on r2's head goes right up to the shadow line.
> > why? i don't think it should. plus, the shadow line is rather harsh on
> > the head as well. i think it should be more gradual. the songle light
> > source has magnintude of color*2. is that my problem? you can see in
> > the closeup that only the blue on the head has the sharp shadow, but in
> > the farther pic, the whole head has the sharp shadow. i need to
> > decrease my error bound for radiosity. notice a blue chunk is missing
> > from the middle of his leg. that leg is a negative copy of the right
> > leg, but the right leg doesn't have that part missing. any ideas why?
> > also, you can see in the closeup, my original tracks, then my second
> > version. i have a third version that looks better. any other
> > comments/suggestions/critisism?
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Image] [Image]
>
> (hopelessly geeky suggestion follows)
>
> If R2 is on Tatooine, then at certain times of the day he would have
> two shadows from the binary suns. Would this help with the shading
> problems?
>
> http://www.starwars.com/locations/tatooine-iv/
>
> Adam C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I solved it by using the phong-highlights instead of specular.
> Hope this helps...
i'll look into that.
> Your images remind me that I should finish my Falcon-model :-)
yes you should because i want it! have you been to the site where the
guy has something like 40 pages of the inconsistancies of the exterior
and interior sets? in the end he produces plans for how big the
exterior should be (the current one is WAY too small), and makes the
much needed inside layout changes. i really like the way he did it,
even if it isn't EXACTLY the way the real interior set was. if you
finish the exterior and size it correctly (did you know the ertl/amt
model is all messed up? the outer ring is too tall, the upper and lower
dishes not deep enough etc.) then i'd like to try and put the above
mentioned interior inside! i bet i could literally cram a million
object inside that model. btw, what scale are you using? please say 1
unit = 1 meter! if you need more reference pictures, i think i have
about 100. some are very huge. i just sent either bob or bill (bill i
think) a couple even though some one else already had and he was going
to do the project over because they are great images. i'm still redoing
my xwing fuselage. i'm giving up on the solid mesh idea and am going to
cut out what i need in the original model. then i'm going to uv map
images on it to be used as material maps (i hope that's possible), so
the final textures will still be procedural, but each area will be
defined via the uvmap. although i've got to fix r2 first. wish me
luck.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Your images remind me that I should finish my Falcon-model :-)
>
> yes you should because i want it!
I want it too :-)
> have you been to the site where the
> guy has something like 40 pages of the inconsistancies of the exterior
> and interior sets? in the end he produces plans for how big the
Sure I have! Almost all the information I used came from that site!
> exterior should be (the current one is WAY too small), and makes the
> much needed inside layout changes. i really like the way he did it,
> even if it isn't EXACTLY the way the real interior set was. if you
> finish the exterior and size it correctly (did you know the ertl/amt
I will, but it's not very likely I make the interior.
What's ertl/amt? I thought I knew most of the SW-shorts.
> model is all messed up? the outer ring is too tall, the upper and lower
> dishes not deep enough etc.) then i'd like to try and put the above
> mentioned interior inside! i bet i could literally cram a million
> object inside that model. btw, what scale are you using? please say 1
> unit = 1 meter! if you need more reference pictures, i think i have
I'm not really using a fixed scale right now...
Well, of course I am, but I don't know what it is. It's about as big as my
previous model was, but I don't know that scale. But It shouldn't be too
difficult to scale it to 1unit=1 meter.
> about 100. some are very huge. i just sent either bob or bill (bill i
I think I have about everything I need to finish it. Maybe a more detailed
picture of the bottom (for the armor-plating)
> think) a couple even though some one else already had and he was going
> to do the project over because they are great images. i'm still redoing
I think that 'someone else' might have been me :-)
> my xwing fuselage. i'm giving up on the solid mesh idea and am going to
> cut out what i need in the original model. then i'm going to uv map
> images on it to be used as material maps (i hope that's possible), so
If you're using MegaPov (which I believe you are) I recommend you use
image_pattern. I think it's more flexible.
> the final textures will still be procedural, but each area will be
Oh, in that case material_maps might be more useful.
> defined via the uvmap. although i've got to fix r2 first. wish me
> luck.
I wish you luck.
What's your next project? I believe you once mentioned the DeathStar?
Cu!
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
