|
 |
Dave Blandston <gra### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> This picture really does a great job of creating a mood. I especially like
> the stone pattern. It has some regularity to it, but also an element of
> randomness. I would vary the texture of the stone walls a little though, but
> that's just my preference. Is each stone a separate object that can be
> individually textured? If so, it might be interesting to vary each one a
> little in color and/or surface texture.
Each stone is an iso, and I have complete control over their texturing.
Right now I'm working on adding some aging to them, but I also want to add a
pigment to the iso to make them a little less regular.
> The stairway is a nice touch as well.
Thanks.
> I can't tell what the brown things are hanging out of the window... Maybe
> some pipes?
Got it in one. There's going to be something coming out of them, maybe (if
I can get it to work), and perhaps some steam. That should make it clearer.
Unfortunately, with the detail level I'm working, even at 1024 x 768 details
are often down to a few pixels. I am hoping to have time to do some detail
shots of important stuff later (not strictly for the IRTC, but because
people may want to see). For example, the only image_map in the picture is
the figure's eyeballs...
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:
> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3ab62a1c@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Does anyone have any data on how much longer adding a (say) granite
> pigment
>> to the iso takes? The isos are deformed rounded boxes right now.
>>
> iirc adding a granite pigment function to my isosurface bricks multiplied
> my render time by 5. I wasn't using radiosity however and had a lot of
> lights
Sounds a little high for my pics. I have very few lights, and the radiosity
is surprisingly quick. I did some trials, and I think it might double my
time. It also made them look kind of a nasty brown (increased shadows) in
places. Maybe I'll do every 10th brick or so, with more in the lower
segments... Hrm
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, with the detail level I'm working, even at 1024 x 768 details
> are often down to a few pixels.
That's the spirit!
> I am hoping to have time to do some detail
> shots of important stuff later (not strictly for the IRTC, but because
> people may want to see). For example, the only image_map in the picture is
> the figure's eyeballs...
However, that might be taking it too far! (Unless an animation is in
the works)
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreque | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
videotron.ca | - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
