 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done, mostly
on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think I've
fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400 of
Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even with
simplified trees. Oh well.
From here on, it's mostly subtle details. Does anyone know where I can get a
good bird object? I was thinking of putting one on the wall in the door or on
the tree, or something.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'summer2.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'summer2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Roberto Ferrer de Amorim
Subject: Re: Door into Summer, update
Date: 22 Feb 2001 08:29:04
Message: <3a951420@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great picture, and very poetic IMHO. Could have been a great entry on the
Contrast contest on IRTC - but even still I doubt you could beat Gilles
Tran. In fact, I doubt if anyone today can beat him (maybe James Vives
Piqueres? :-) ).
> Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done,
mostly
> on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think
I've
> fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
> change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400
of
> Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even
with
> simplified trees. Oh well.
>
> From here on, it's mostly subtle details. Does anyone know where I can
get a
> good bird object? I was thinking of putting one on the wall in the door
or on
> the tree, or something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMHO I think some snow (and maybe some ice) accumulation on top of the stone
wall, on the urn, the branches, etc., might help. It looks kind of odd
otherwise, as though the snow managed to fall just on the ground and nowhere
else. Also as the wall warms up and cools down some of the snow on it would
melt, run down the sides and freeze again.
--
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwin cwruedu> wrote in message
news:3A9### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done,
mostly
> on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think
I've
> fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
> change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400
of
> Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even
with
> simplified trees. Oh well.
>
> From here on, it's mostly subtle details. Does anyone know where I can
get a
> good bird object? I was thinking of putting one on the wall in the door
or on
> the tree, or something.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roberto Ferrer de Amorim <ram### [at] comdescontocombr> wrote:
> Great picture, and very poetic IMHO. Could have been a great entry on the
> Contrast contest on IRTC - but even still I doubt you could beat Gilles
> Tran. In fact, I doubt if anyone today can beat him (maybe James Vives
> Piqueres? :-) ).
Well, it's an idea I had for awhile, but only recently figured out how to do
to the level I wanted. I've thought often it'd be a good pic for the
Contrasts, but that's not an option, sadly. ;)
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc A. Lavoie <mar### [at] basecontrolscom> wrote:
> IMHO I think some snow (and maybe some ice) accumulation on top of the stone
> wall, on the urn, the branches, etc., might help. It looks kind of odd
> otherwise, as though the snow managed to fall just on the ground and nowhere
> else. Also as the wall warms up and cools down some of the snow on it would
> melt, run down the sides and freeze again.
Planning on that. Originally my theory was 'wind' blew it off the top, but
drifts formed down below. It's sortof accurate, too, as the plains
surrounding are rather open, so there could be some pretty good winds going.
Still, I'm planning on adding more snow.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> Planning on that. Originally my theory was 'wind' blew it off the top, but
> drifts formed down below. It's sortof accurate, too, as the plains
> surrounding are rather open, so there could be some pretty good winds going.
>
Then there would have to be snow sticking to the sides of the walls :-)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great picture, and very poetic IMHO.
*****
Ditto, Roberto . . .
I really like the idea of a time portal . . . even a 6 month one . . .
Got ideas flowing now for a jump in time of 200 or 300 years . . .
showing the change in geology or technology or . . . ?
Very nice . . .
Y
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It just occured to me what would give this picture some more depth.. A
set of footprints in the snow, leading thru the doorway..
Also, some additional lights inside of the summer side, possibly inside
of a sky sphere with some nice clouds. There is also some sPatch birds out
there somewhere, that would make it nice inside..
I'm blathering, aren;t I? :-)
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3A9### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done,
mostly
> on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think
I've
> fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
> change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400
of
> Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even
with
> simplified trees. Oh well.
>
> From here on, it's mostly subtle details. Does anyone know where I can
get a
> good bird object? I was thinking of putting one on the wall in the door
or on
> the tree, or something.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A good idea might be to try to use the MegaPOV+ particle affects. You can
actually have an 'emmiter' throw out blobs, etc, that will do collision
detection. You could quite literally have an emmiter 'throw' some snow at
the wall.. :-)
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3a952496@news.povray.org...
> Marc A. Lavoie <mar### [at] basecontrolscom> wrote:
> > IMHO I think some snow (and maybe some ice) accumulation on top of the
stone
> > wall, on the urn, the branches, etc., might help. It looks kind of odd
> > otherwise, as though the snow managed to fall just on the ground and
nowhere
> > else. Also as the wall warms up and cools down some of the snow on it
would
> > melt, run down the sides and freeze again.
> Planning on that. Originally my theory was 'wind' blew it off the top,
but
> drifts formed down below. It's sortof accurate, too, as the plains
> surrounding are rather open, so there could be some pretty good winds
going.
> Still, I'm planning on adding more snow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Charron <tch### [at] ductapenet> wrote:
> It just occured to me what would give this picture some more depth.. A
> set of footprints in the snow, leading thru the doorway..
You've read my mind. I'm planning on adding some rabbit tracks out the
door. I'd considered a poser figure looking through, but have decided
against.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
yooper <Out### [at] huntelnet> wrote:
> Great picture, and very poetic IMHO.
> *****
> Ditto, Roberto . . .
> I really like the idea of a time portal . . . even a 6 month one . . .
> Got ideas flowing now for a jump in time of 200 or 300 years . . .
> showing the change in geology or technology or . . . ?
Well, I can literally do anything I want through a door like this. I've
considered a desolate mountain peak, with a door made of rough stone, with
some kind of native (I'm thinking aborigine) drawings on it, with the view
through the doorway of a starcase leading upwards... Or maybe another green
plane, full of sun and light. The method is quite easy to work with in this
fashion.
Hmm, a picture of a medieval town with a door opening into a modern city
does have nice appeal as well. Have to think about it.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>>
>> Planning on that. Originally my theory was 'wind' blew it off the top, but
>> drifts formed down below. It's sortof accurate, too, as the plains
>> surrounding are rather open, so there could be some pretty good winds going.
>>
> Then there would have to be snow sticking to the sides of the walls :-)
Depends on how cold the walls are. If really cold, the snow wouldn't stick,
if moderately warm, the snow would melt and run down the sides to pile at
the base.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> Depends on how cold the walls are. If really cold, the snow wouldn't stick,
> if moderately warm, the snow would melt and run down the sides to pile at
> the base.
At least in the gaps between the stones and near the vases, there would
have to be some snow.
I posted a simple snowing macro some time ago, but it probably does not
work well for windy situations.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>>
>> Depends on how cold the walls are. If really cold, the snow wouldn't stick,
>> if moderately warm, the snow would melt and run down the sides to pile at
>> the base.
> At least in the gaps between the stones and near the vases, there would
> have to be some snow.
You're probably right. In one of my test pictures, the snow blob actually
appeared through the isosurface in several little bits, but in changing the
isosurface, that went away (that wasn't the intent of the change, just a
side effect). Maybe I can do something similar. I'm not sure the effort of
placing a lot of little snowblobs would be all that useful though.
> I posted a simple snowing macro some time ago, but it probably does not
> work well for windy situations.
Hmm, maybe I should look into it.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> Ok, here's the newest version.
The lighting looks kind of odd on this one.. should summer really look
darker than winter? Also, the summer sky is wrong; it should be getting
lighter towards the horizon, not darker.
Neat trick, though.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>>
>> Ok, here's the newest version.
> The lighting looks kind of odd on this one.. should summer really look
> darker than winter? Also, the summer sky is wrong; it should be getting
> lighter towards the horizon, not darker.
Well, if winter is white, and summer is colored, yeah, summer is darker.
Without playing with the dynamic range, I'm not sure what can be done about
that.
And yeah, I know about the sky. Need to fix that.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3a95445a@news.povray.org...
> Thomas Charron <tch### [at] ductapenet> wrote:
> > It just occured to me what would give this picture some more depth..
A
> > set of footprints in the snow, leading thru the doorway..
> You've read my mind. I'm planning on adding some rabbit tracks out the
> door. I'd considered a poser figure looking through, but have decided
> against.
Ya, I think it'd detract from the image, remove its sereal look..
Tracks in the snow be darned good, though..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A9### [at] darwincwruedu>, Geoff Wedig says...
> Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done, mostly
> on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think I've
> fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
> change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400 of
> Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even with
> simplified trees. Oh well.
> <snip>
Would it be possible to make a stereo pair? It would be very funny to
see it in 3D :)
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander <san### [at] stolscom> wrote:
> In article <3A9### [at] darwincwruedu>, Geoff Wedig says...
>> Ok, here's the newest version. A lot of subtle things have been done, mostly
>> on the walls and vases. I'm still not happy with the arches, but I think I've
>
>> fixed them for now (but haven't rendered it to find out yet). The biggest
>> change is the forest in the background, which may be the death of me. 400 of
>> Gilles trees are causing my computer to swap heavily while parsing, even with
>> simplified trees. Oh well.
>> <snip>
> Would it be possible to make a stereo pair? It would be very funny to
> see it in 3D :)
I've never done it, but it should be possible. How does one go about making
such a beast? Other than transforming the camera slightly one way or
t'other, I mean
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a968e3f@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
> I've never done it, but it should be possible. How does one go about
> making such a beast? Other than transforming the camera slightly one
> way or t'other, I mean
Well, I suppose you could put the entire scene into a union and
transform it instead...why don't you want to transform the camera?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> In article <3a968e3f@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig
> <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
>> I've never done it, but it should be possible. How does one go about
>> making such a beast? Other than transforming the camera slightly one
>> way or t'other, I mean
> Well, I suppose you could put the entire scene into a union and
> transform it instead...why don't you want to transform the camera?
No, I can transform the camera, I meant "Other than transforming the camera,
what needs done?" I assume I'd post process them into a side by side image,
but I wasn't sure that I didn't have to transform the camera in a certain
way, or transform the look at as well, or whatnot. If it's simply
transforming the camera 4 inches to the left (about the distance eyes are
apart, right?) then it's easy.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a96ad70@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:
> No, I can transform the camera, I meant "Other than transforming the
> camera, what needs done?" I assume I'd post process them into a side
> by side image, but I wasn't sure that I didn't have to transform the
> camera in a certain way, or transform the look at as well, or
> whatnot. If it's simply transforming the camera 4 inches to the left
> (about the distance eyes are apart, right?) then it's easy.
You should rotate the cameras around the look_at point so they are about
3 inches apart (adjust this for the desired effect). Figuring out the
exact angles to use would require some fairly simple trigonometry...but
the easiest way would probably just be to move the location of the
cameras (leave the look_at point alone, so each camera targets the right
spot). This will work best if you move the location along an axis
perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing. (hint: look up the
vcross() function)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The shift will be smaller than you might at first think . . .
I believe that in general . . . shoot for 1 unit of displacement for every
30 units of distance to the target. If your camera is 30 from the wall,
shift the camera 1 unit to the right.
Then paste the results side by side. These are often difficult to view
on a monitor (crossed-eyes method) and the wider the pic, the more
difficult it will be for folks to see. Any shift > 3 inches on your monitor
will be difficult or impossible for most folks to see. Prints offer you a
little more latitude.
I would just simulate your scene and set up a few simple objects at those
distances and experiment. It's a great effect if you can get it right . . .
and, as I said, the most common mistake . . . even with a camera, is to
shift too far. The brain (where depth perception lives) can't make sense
of the data.
--
Y
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a96ebbf@news.povray.org>, "yooper" <Out### [at] huntelnet>
wrote:
> The shift will be smaller than you might at first think . . .
> I believe that in general . . . shoot for 1 unit of displacement for
> every 30 units of distance to the target. If your camera is 30 from
> the wall, shift the camera 1 unit to the right.
Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? Your eyes don't get farther
apart when looking at distant objects, they stay the same distance apart
and rotate to be closer to parallel. And the distance of the separation
should be fairly close to what it would be if you were standing in the
scene, or the scale won't look right.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-B43B9F.10013925022001@news.povray.org...
> In article <3a96ebbf@news.povray.org>, "yooper" <Out### [at] huntelnet>
> wrote:
>
> > shoot for 1 unit of displacement for
> > every 30 units of distance to the target. If your camera is 30 from
> > the wall, shift the camera 1 unit to the right.
>
> Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? Your eyes don't get farther
> apart when looking at distant objects, they stay the same distance apart
> and rotate to be closer to parallel. And the distance of the separation
> should be fairly close to what it would be if you were standing in the
> scene, or the scale won't look right.
I had read somewhere that 1 unit separation for a focal point 300 units away
was a good idea for the average scene. Of course the best way would have to
be to use units as a real world measurement, say inches, and go from there.
Obviously still needs to consider field of view (angle or direction in
camera).
I agree with Chris here that following actual human eye characteristics must
be the way to go, however maybe the reasoning not to do so has to do with 3D
photography in some way. I guess most any camera was/is setup to look
parallel because of perspective changes from the parallax eyes usually have
would cause some kind of non-alignment trouble.
It's not something I've truly learned anything about so I'm just chattering
mindlessly here.
The stereo pairs I posted just now here at p.b.i. have more than a 5 unit
shift with focal point some 600 units away, the camera being rotated around
that. Scale based on that would make the scene just room-sized and not the
large open spaces it is supposed to be. 25 feet (7.6 meters) to the middle
of the image.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Chris:
> > Where does this "rule of thumb" come from? Your eyes don't get farther
> > apart when looking at distant objects, they stay the same distance apart
> > and rotate to be closer to parallel.
> Bob:
> I agree with Chris here that following actual human eye characteristics
must
> be the way to go, however maybe the reasoning not to do so has to do with
3D
> photography in some way.
***
Correct . . . the angle of convergence is the thing we need to simulate.
The 1:30 was just something I recall using just to get the effect close.
I think that's like looking at something about 7 or 8 ft away which covers
a lot of renderings of scenes that contain just one abstract object . . ..
However, when simulating a real world scene, it does become important
to maintain the perspective.
Again . . . we see that simulating what the human eye/brain is capable of
doing is quite a task, eh? The eye can adapt to different ranges of color,
brightness and focal distances automatically . . . we aren't even aware
that it takes place. However, when using a camera or POVray to render a
3D scene, we have to pick one spot and get the settings right or it won't
look like what the eye/brain sees.
I have done 3D photograpy for 30 years and with the camera, it's pretty
straight-forward . I pick the object of interest and take the left and
right
shots ensuring that when I make the shift ( about 3 inches in this case . .
.
just simulating the eye separation) that the object of interest is what I
keep centered. The result is . . . the difference in the angle from the
left
and right view will accuratly simulate the angle that the eyes use to focus
on the object of interest. If focused at infinity, it would be zero, and as
the
distance from eye to object decreases, the angle of convergence increases.
The brain, which has learned through experience, uses both this angle to
focus the eye and the relative horizontal shift of the objects in the view
to
determine depth and perspective. And . . . notice that the object of
interest
will not shift while objects closer will shift left and those farther away
to the right. Well . . . it's all relative . . . but focusing on the object
of
interest is important.
With POVray . . . we have to caculate the proper camera shift. There is
no need to calculate the angle . . . just the relationship of distance to
shift.
(Although that would be useful if we are rotating the camera around the
object by degrees - simple trig function, eh?)
If the object is 10 foot away and we use 3 inches for eye separation, we
will want to shift our camera 3in/120in or 0.025 units for every unit of
distance to the object. For 30 foot . . . 3/360 or 0.00833 units of shift
per
unit of distance. Of course you can deviate from this formula to enhance
the effect but . . . at some point it will no longer appear realistic.
And . . . using focal-blur to simulate depth-of-field would also enhance
the effect. Keep the target object in sharp focus. That's the reason I
rotate
around the object of interest when using the camera for 3D photos . . . the
brain uses that convergence data to tell the eye the distance to focus at
and we want to simulate that too to make it as realistic as possible.
Have attached a 3D pic I found on the web . . . on a site for MathArt . . .
http://www.lvcablemodem.com/esullivan/webquest.html
This is a very nice example of what can be done.
Y
cross-eyed and unfocused . . . SOP ;)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'mstytwrp.jpg' (14 KB)
Preview of image 'mstytwrp.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"yooper" <Out### [at] huntelnet> wrote in message
news:3a9954cf@news.povray.org...
>
> I have done 3D photograpy for 30 years and with the camera
That's a long time :-) I've only been doing 3D photos for about a half
dozen years.
Some pictures of bridges and dams had a separation of around 1 yard or 1
meter with the bridge/dam center points being something like 1/4 mile away
or more. That would be about the 1:300 ratio (well a little more) which
makes the whole scene appear to fit within a football-sized area. Otherwise
there wouldn't be enough 3D effect to do any good.
> (Although that would be useful if we are rotating the camera around the
> object by degrees - simple trig function, eh?)
> If the object is 10 foot away and we use 3 inches for eye separation, we
> will want to shift our camera 3in/120in or 0.025 units for every unit of
> distance to the object. For 30 foot . . . 3/360 or 0.00833 units of shift
> per unit of distance. Of course you can deviate from this formula to
enhance
> the effect but . . . at some point it will no longer appear realistic.
I've tried both parallel and convergence and I'm not sure which is better,
but I think there's usually an artificial look to the parallel way.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote:
> I've tried both parallel and convergence and I'm not sure which is better,
> but I think there's usually an artificial look to the parallel way.
Well, I did some tests this weekend, and I didn't really like the results.
Of course, I don't have any experience in this particular area.
So, I'm not certain what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll animate a walk
sequence through the doorway and looking back. First I want to finish the
pic, though.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another new version:
http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer.png
Also, I've started animating it. There's a prototype at:
http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer-prototype.m1v
and the frames I've done so far at:
http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer.m1v
It's only the first 20 frames, though. It takes over 11 hours for each
frame on the hardware I have, though I have access to a Mosix cluster that
I'm using, so I can do 10-30 frames at once (depending on how much of a
glutton for resources I want to be. ;) )
So, what do folks think?
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The snow looks good and the bird is a nice addition, but the summer looks
much too dark in relation to the winter. The light coming through the
door is quite bright, so the scenery should be brighter too.
For some reason i could not view the movies, media player loaded them, but
no viewable content.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> The snow looks good and the bird is a nice addition, but the summer looks
> much too dark in relation to the winter. The light coming through the
> door is quite bright, so the scenery should be brighter too.
Well, it's difficult. To get the angle for the light, we're basically
looking into the sun, so we get lots of shadows on the grass, which darkens
that. The other problem is that the dynamic ranges basically require that
the winter be brighter (white) than the summer (colored). Of course, if you
take two photos, one winter and one summer, this will be the case as well.
All the same, I am planning on brightening up the grass.
> For some reason i could not view the movies, media player loaded them, but
> no viewable content.
Hmmm, odd. Dunno how to fix it, though.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just in case anyone here wants to see, I've animated the DiS (I know, I'be
cross-posted this to p.b.a as well.)
http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer2001.m1v
Be careful, it's 1.3 megs, but I think it's worth it.
So what do people think? (and yeah, I know the grass needs fixed :/ )
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Marc-Hendrik Bremer
Subject: Re: WIP: Door into Summer, update
Date: 3 Mar 2001 13:06:25
Message: <3aa132a1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like the summerside more. Perhaps you should do "Door into Winter" as a
still. :-)
The animation flickers a lot. I've not done many animations myself but I
think it has to do with "jitter", which should be turned off. The
documentation should tell you what to do (I know there is a jitter-keyword
in area-lights - but there might be another one).
I find it interesting, that the winter-side looks darker as the summer when
looked from within the Summer and vice versa.
The winter-forest has to be on both sides because of your method? Otherwise
I would drop the one, which is to be seen at the end of the animation.
IMO you should work on the birds texture a bit ;-)
This is really a nice piece of work. The snow is very good now and the
overall conception is wonderful.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow, this is even better than I was expecting it to be. The animation really
adds to the illusion.
I know you might just be trying to keep the file size down, but near the end
of the animation the camera seems to start spinning faster. After I watched
the animation a few times I got used to it, but it would be better (in my
opinion, anyway) to maintain a constant speed.
Regards,
Dave
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3aa1141c@news.povray.org...
> Just in case anyone here wants to see, I've animated the DiS (I know, I'be
> cross-posted this to p.b.a as well.)
>
> http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer2001.m1v
>
> Be careful, it's 1.3 megs, but I think it's worth it.
>
> So what do people think? (and yeah, I know the grass needs fixed :/ )
>
> Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.binaries.animations Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Marc-Hendrik.Bremer@t-online.de>
wrote:
> I like the summerside more. Perhaps you should do "Door into Winter" as a
> still. :-)
> The animation flickers a lot. I've not done many animations myself but I
> think it has to do with "jitter", which should be turned off.
No, it's not jitter, since that is turned off. It's radiosity, which has
much the same effect from one frame to the next. If I could do a radiosity
map, similar to the photon map, and use it for all frames, it would not only
speed rendering, but it would get rid of that. Only other option is to turn
the radiosity settings way up to try to get convergence.
> I find it interesting, that the winter-side looks darker as the summer when
> looked from within the Summer and vice versa.
> The winter-forest has to be on both sides because of your method? Otherwise
> I would drop the one, which is to be seen at the end of the animation.
Actually no. I could drop them from the end of the animation, or replace it
with something else without changing the forest at the beginning. They're
completely independent. But I wanted something there, so I kept it. ;)
> IMO you should work on the birds texture a bit ;-)
Yeah, it's quite simple, and most of the detail disappears when the
animation kicks in (in fact, detail is lost pretty badly when I mpg'd
things), making it look like a little red blob.
> This is really a nice piece of work. The snow is very good now and the
> overall conception is wonderful.
Thanks. I've become fascinated with rendering things that Just-Cant-Be
lately. I'm thinking of playing with this concept for the Fortress round,
but not sure what I'll do.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.binaries.animations Dave Blandston <grasshoppah@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Wow, this is even better than I was expecting it to be. The animation really
> adds to the illusion.
Thanks. I hoped it would.
> I know you might just be trying to keep the file size down, but near the end
> of the animation the camera seems to start spinning faster. After I watched
> the animation a few times I got used to it, but it would be better (in my
> opinion, anyway) to maintain a constant speed.
Yeah, and there's an unfortunate flicker there too passing by the tree.
Mostly, it's due to the low frame rate (20 fps), and my own guesstimates on
how fast someone can turn around, plus the spline doing a fast in the
middle, slow at each end thing. If I really want to do that, I need to
either focal blur it, or slow it down. I'll probably slow it down and
rerender the last 2 seconds or so as 3-4 seconds. Should clean that up.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Marc-Hendrik Bremer
Subject: Re: WIP: Door into Summer, update
Date: 3 Mar 2001 13:50:30
Message: <3aa13cf6@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig schrieb in Nachricht <3aa1390e@news.povray.org>...
>It's radiosity, which has
>much the same effect from one frame to the next. If I could do a radiosity
>map, similar to the photon map, and use it for all frames, it would not
only
>speed rendering, but it would get rid of that. Only other option is to
turn
>the radiosity settings way up to try to get convergence.
Oh OK, didn't know that rad could have this effect too.
In a way that flicking is not even a bad thing. There were/are some
comic-animation's which had some flickering to. It might be a sign of low
quality there but it adds somehow to the life in the animation.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.binaries.animations Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Marc-Hendrik.Bremer@t-online.de>
wrote:
> Geoff Wedig schrieb in Nachricht <3aa1390e@news.povray.org>...
>>It's radiosity, which has
>>much the same effect from one frame to the next. If I could do a radiosity
>>map, similar to the photon map, and use it for all frames, it would not
> only
>>speed rendering, but it would get rid of that. Only other option is to
> turn
>>the radiosity settings way up to try to get convergence.
> Oh OK, didn't know that rad could have this effect too.
> In a way that flicking is not even a bad thing. There were/are some
> comic-animation's which had some flickering to. It might be a sign of low
> quality there but it adds somehow to the life in the animation.
Well, any random process is likely to have this effect. POV radiosity isn't
'true' radiosity, it's a Monte-Carlo method. It sends out random rays and
then averages. If you send enough rays, the average will converge to the
right result, but what is 'enough' is a question. Also, because pov uses a
method whereby some points that are close use similar radiosity values so it
doesn't have to calculate *every* point, then when the camera moves, we get
some strange artifacts.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3aa139a4@news.povray.org...
>
> Yeah, and there's an unfortunate flicker there too passing by the tree.
Noticed that. Seems to skip a couple frames right between the vase and
tree, just another spline point would fix that I guess.
I've wanted to do something like this for a long time, I used to draw such
things some 25 years ago. I really like what you have done with this. The
grass works well I think, only a place near the doorway that apparently goes
from textured plane to modeled blades, otherwise it seemed right enough to
me.
Could always continue to build on this.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.binaries.animations Bob H. <omniverse0@msn.com> wrote:
> "Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3aa139a4@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Yeah, and there's an unfortunate flicker there too passing by the tree.
> Noticed that. Seems to skip a couple frames right between the vase and
> tree, just another spline point would fix that I guess.
> I've wanted to do something like this for a long time, I used to draw such
> things some 25 years ago. I really like what you have done with this. The
> grass works well I think, only a place near the doorway that apparently goes
> from textured plane to modeled blades, otherwise it seemed right enough to
> me.
> Could always continue to build on this.
Well, I figured out why this worked incorrectly. I copy/pasted an incorrect
time for key camera positions. Unfortunately, fixing it requires
rerendering all the way back to around second 3 (of 10). Ick. Well,
luckily I've got a cluster of 30 processors to do it for me. Should only
take a day or two....
I should probably fix the grass before I do so, though, huh?
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
