Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image 
and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version 
I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you 
can see more, so more there must be!)

So what do people think?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'abyss010414.jpg' (155 KB)

Preview of image 'abyss010414.jpg'

By reading the message subject I'd have expected a picture of the liberty
bell! ;-)
I love the satellite-dish, matches the old castle quite well!

Bugs74


"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Personally, I preferred the previous version... I loved the fantasy and
misterious touch it had.
In this version the fortress almost looks cozy, and the blue sky is maybe
too saturated.
The led panel is not as noticeble as in the first version and the sense of
"bottomless pit" is lost.
But that's my opinion.
Still a neat image.
jrg.

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
> 
> So what do people think?
> 
> Geoff
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

It's really nice as it allows us to see more of the details that went in
the design of the fortress, however the image loses some of its mystical
feel.  For example, it really looks like the guy is just throwing his
lunch left-overs in the water (which everyone knows is bad for the
environment!).  If you keep going ahead with this background, you'd
probably need to add an underwater creature to explain what the person
is doing.

Some other slight nitpicks include:
- have the wave patterns conform to the fortress outline,
- have the first few rows of stones be wet,
- and have the clouds extend further away as they blend into the
horizon.




-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
    flabreque     | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
   videotron.ca   | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
                  | motion.
                               - Stolen from Badger's .sig file

Post a reply to this message

JRG <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Personally, I preferred the previous version... I loved the fantasy and
> misterious touch it had.

Well, yeah.  I'm not certain which I'm going with.  I just thought this was
pretty.

> In this version the fortress almost looks cozy, and the blue sky is maybe
> too saturated.

Thrown together.  Definitely needs some work, yeah.  In fact, it's basically
just the code from the pov manual for clouds, modified a little bit.

> The led panel is not as noticeble as in the first version and the sense of
> "bottomless pit" is lost.

Yeah, that's the big thing that bothers me.  Maybe I can get HE Day to let
me use his bottomless waterfall. ;)  Actually, a whirlpool or something
could be neat.  How to do it is a bit of a question, though.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> Geoff Wedig wrote:

> It's really nice as it allows us to see more of the details that went in
> the design of the fortress, however the image loses some of its mystical
> feel.

Yes.  It doesn't have that dark foreboding look.  Not sure I like losing
that.

  For example, it really looks like the guy is just throwing his
> lunch left-overs in the water (which everyone knows is bad for the
> environment!).  If you keep going ahead with this background, you'd
> probably need to add an underwater creature to explain what the person
> is doing.

Well, I've been considering a whirlpool.  If I can work out an iso funtion,
I'll do it.

> Some other slight nitpicks include:
> - have the wave patterns conform to the fortress outline,
> - have the first few rows of stones be wet,

They are, actually.  It's just not really noticable.  Need to work on that.

> - and have the clouds extend further away as they blend into the
> horizon.

Yeah, the clouds were thrown together.  As said elsewhere, they're basically
just the clouds from the pov manual, with a bit of scaling and some altered
parameters.  I'm not good with clouds, so ....  Anyone got any good, fast
clouds that are nice and fluffy looking that render blazingly fast?  I can't
put up with the image taking much longer. :/

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> 
>   For example, it really looks like the guy is just throwing his
> > lunch left-overs in the water (which everyone knows is bad for the
> > environment!).  If you keep going ahead with this background, you'd
> > probably need to add an underwater creature to explain what the person
> > is doing.
> 
> Well, I've been considering a whirlpool.  If I can work out an iso funtion,
> I'll do it.

There were posts on that subject a while back on p.g. or .p.a-u.  

> > - and have the clouds extend further away as they blend into the
> > horizon.
> 
> Yeah, the clouds were thrown together.  As said elsewhere, they're basically
> just the clouds from the pov manual, with a bit of scaling and some altered
> parameters.  I'm not good with clouds, so ....  Anyone got any good, fast
> clouds that are nice and fluffy looking that render blazingly fast?  I can't
> put up with the image taking much longer. :/

You could always use an image_map.

-- 
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
    flabreque     | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
        @         | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a 
   videotron.ca   | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
                  | motion.
                               - Stolen from Badger's .sig file

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:

> Well, I've been considering a whirlpool.  If I can work out an iso funtion,
> I'll do it.

This should come close -

#declare Vortex = function{1/((x^2)+(z^2)+0.3)+sin(atan2(x,z)*7+y*10)*0.025}
                  
#declare Vortex1 =
isosurface {
            function {y+Vortex(x,-y,z)}
            threshold 0
            accuracy 0.00001
            max_gradient 3.9
            contained_by {box {<-5,-4.99,-5>, < 5, 0.01, 5>}}
           }

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>> Well, I've been considering a whirlpool.  If I can work out an iso funtion,
>> I'll do it.

> There were posts on that subject a while back on p.g. or .p.a-u.  

Yeah.  I need to look at them.  I remember the thread.

>> > - and have the clouds extend further away as they blend into the
>> > horizon.
>> 
>> Yeah, the clouds were thrown together.  As said elsewhere, they're basically
>> just the clouds from the pov manual, with a bit of scaling and some altered
>> parameters.  I'm not good with clouds, so ....  Anyone got any good, fast
>> clouds that are nice and fluffy looking that render blazingly fast?  I can't
>> put up with the image taking much longer. :/

> You could always use an image_map.

Well, yeah, I could.  But.... well, I haven't yet.  I've managed to do
completely without.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Bugs74 <bug### [at] wanadoonl> wrote:

> By reading the message subject I'd have expected a picture of the liberty
> bell! ;-)

What does that phrase have to do with the Liberty Bell?

> I love the satellite-dish, matches the old castle quite well!

Thanks.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

> What does that phrase have to do with the Liberty Bell?

'And now for something completely different' is a famous sentence from the
Monty Python-series, which theme song was 'Liberty Bell' by a guy called
Sousa  (or am I wrong?)
It's a bit farfetched, I know, but that was the first thing that came to my
mind!

Bugs74

Post a reply to this message

Bugs74 <bug### [at] wanadoonl> wrote:

>> What does that phrase have to do with the Liberty Bell?

> 'And now for something completely different' is a famous sentence from the
> Monty Python-series, which theme song was 'Liberty Bell' by a guy called
> Sousa  (or am I wrong?)
> It's a bit farfetched, I know, but that was the first thing that came to my
> mind!

Ah, I knew the MP reference, and the tune, but not its name, so didn't see
the connection.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

This might look cool if you kept the water and tried to light the entire
image with torches.


Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Shay <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:

> This might look cool if you kept the water and tried to light the entire
> image with torches.

Well, the original was underlit, and it'd look funny through the water.  But
I might try it anyway.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Nice pic ... Details are more visible, but the mood is lost ...
If you continue this pic, try to invert the normals of the water
(bump_size -1)... it'll give a slightly better effect ...

--
background{rgb 1}camera{location<1,5,-2>look_at 0}#macro
m(a,b,i)#local d=(b-a)
/8;#local
e=vcross(d,y);#if(i)m(a-e,a+e+2*d,i-1)m(a+e,a+2*d-e,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+e
+3*d,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+5*d-e,i-1)m(a+6*d-e,a+e+6*d,i-1)m(a+8*d-e,a+e+8*d
,i-1)#else
cylinder{a,b,vlength(d)/3 pigment{rgb 0}}#end#end m(-4*x,2*x,4) // Jan
Walzer


"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my
IRTC image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure
which version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one
(hey, you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Post a reply to this message

A couple things I would mention.
- In daylight this castle looks a little too clean.
- The green growth around the water line is not dark or scumy enough.
- The person needs better texturing.
... and please let the sky and clouds do justice to your work on the
castle!

I would be intrigued by some mysterious corresponding glow down under
the water (does this mean a sunset for dimmer ambient lighting to afford
appropriate contrast?).

Abe

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
> 
> So what do people think?
> 
> Geoff
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

I don't want to compete with this one, but a spiral pigment function
combined with the inside of a cone might also help. I just tried to force
the build-in function helix2 to a cone shape but the necessary gradient
and/or accuracy was far to much to give working results.

Just my 2 Pfennige,

Marc-Hendrik

Ken schrieb in Nachricht <3ADAFBD6.4E0804D3@pacbell.net>...
>
>This should come close -

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> I don't want to compete with this one, but a spiral pigment function
> combined with the inside of a cone might also help. I just tried to force
> the build-in function helix2 to a cone shape but the necessary gradient
> and/or accuracy was far to much to give working results.

Well, Ken's vortex works pretty well when combined with the ridged MF that
I'm using for the basic water.  However, I'm having a little bit of a
problem controlling it.  Which numbers to change to get certain effects is
not really clear.  I'm getting the hang of it slowly, but...


Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:

> Nice pic ... Details are more visible, but the mood is lost ...
> If you continue this pic, try to invert the normals of the water
> (bump_size -1)... it'll give a slightly better effect ...

The water is an iso, not a normal.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Is it ? ... wow ...
Anyway you should try to reverse the bumps ...
From the pattern itself I think its a crackle-pattern with some
turbulence, but I maybe wrong, again ...

--
background{rgb 1}camera{location<1,5,-2>look_at 0}#macro
m(a,b,i)#local d=(b-a)
/8;#local
e=vcross(d,y);#if(i)m(a-e,a+e+2*d,i-1)m(a+e,a+2*d-e,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+e
+3*d,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+5*d-e,i-1)m(a+6*d-e,a+e+6*d,i-1)m(a+8*d-e,a+e+8*d
,i-1)#else
cylinder{a,b,vlength(d)/3 pigment{rgb 0}}#end#end m(-4*x,2*x,4) // Jan
Walzer

Post a reply to this message

This take looks much better, but it just needs some fog in the background to get
rid of the horizon line, which is a bit distracting.

Josh

Post a reply to this message

I really like how you can see a lot more detail, but the mood _is_ lost.  IMO the
moss looks much better in this lighting tho.

Perhaps there is some way you could reach a mid-light-level compromise...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Try to make the water a bit more still!
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:

> Is it ? ... wow ...
> Anyway you should try to reverse the bumps ...
> From the pattern itself I think its a crackle-pattern with some
> turbulence, but I maybe wrong, again ...

It's a Ridged MF.  I'm still getting the hang of using rmf.  Any good
tutorials out there that show what the numbers actually do?  The
descriptions in the MPov docs don't really tell me much, and they're slow to
render, so I'm loathe to experiment much.

On a different topic (the original one, actually)  Why do you think the
bumps need reversed?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> I really like how you can see a lot more detail, but the mood _is_ lost.  IMO th
> e
> moss looks much better in this lighting tho.

Yeah, the mood is totally different.  I like the mood of the original, but
the mood of this one isn't bad, just... different.  Have to go with
different characters though.  The figure throwing something away just
doesn't work on a bright, sunny day.

> Perhaps there is some way you could reach a mid-light-level compromise...

I've tried, but I didn't get much of anywhere.  I tried using the water in
the dark, but the lighting was all screwed up by the water's ior and such. 
Making the dark version too much brighter messes up the mood as well, but
maybe I can put some point sources (torches or something) to bring out some
of the details.

Hmmmm.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Abe <bul### [at] taconicnet> wrote:

> A couple things I would mention.
> - In daylight this castle looks a little too clean.

Yeah.  Need to scum it up a bit more.

> - The green growth around the water line is not dark or scumy enough.

Well, since the water is a new thing, I hadn't gotten to retexturing
anything for the new pic, but you're right.

> - The person needs better texturing.

Well, the person is probably being removed, if I go with this version.  A
sad man throwing away things doesn't fit this mood.

> ... and please let the sky and clouds do justice to your work on the
> castle!

That would require developing good, fast clouds, and I don't know how (good
*or* fast, I know), and I'd rather work on details on the castle itself.

> I would be intrigued by some mysterious corresponding glow down under
> the water (does this mean a sunset for dimmer ambient lighting to afford
> appropriate contrast?).

Not necessarily.  The glow shows under the water, it just wasn't appealing. 
That and the render time goes up a *lot* when doing it.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Josh English <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote:

> This take looks much better, but it just needs some fog in the background to get
> rid of the horizon line, which is a bit distracting.

Yep.  On the list of 'things to be done'

However, you seem to be in the minority of those who think this is better.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Saadat Saeed <saa### [at] batelcocombh> wrote:

> Try to make the water a bit more still!

More still?  I thought the water was a bit *too* still.  It looks a little
flat.  Needs to have some rolling waves, I thought.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

I'd give it a stormy sky and then of course the whirlpool. Maybe something
glowing under water to add to the mystery...

Nekar Xenos

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <vir### [at] iconcoza> wrote:

> I'd give it a stormy sky and then of course the whirlpool. Maybe something
> glowing under water to add to the mystery...

Hmm, that's an idea.  Lightning flashes and rain pelting down... Can light
it a bit differently, maybe have the storms just coming in from the side...

Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
millions of drops? :/

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3adc4434@news.povray.org...
>
> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
> millions of drops? :/

Try a plane/box very close to the camera with a mostly transparent
bozo texture. Should be fairly convincing, especially if you also
use a fog/media for murkiness

Gail
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza                *   Step into the abyss,           *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/   *   and let go.        Babylon 5   *
*************************************************************************
* The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer *
*************************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:


> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3adc4434@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
>> millions of drops? :/

> Try a plane/box very close to the camera with a mostly transparent
> bozo texture. Should be fairly convincing, especially if you also
> use a fog/media for murkiness

Hmm, yeah, I could try that.  If I scale it a bit, and rotate it to get an
angle.  Yeah, could work.

Hmmm.

Maybe I should have the storm coming in, then I don't have to have actual
rain in the picture. :/

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

I like this one better :) - but i am not in this round of the irtc and not
voting so i dont really count!


--
Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:

> I like this one better :) - but i am not in this round of the irtc and not
> voting so i dont really count!

I'm not sure that I don't like this version better, and my opinion is
ultimately the one that counts the most.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
> 
> So what do people think?
> 

That looks really good although the sky is disgusting :-)

The photons look interesting although the structures seem quite large. 
Nice to see someone else working on water photons too.  Is it possible to
see some statistics?

The stones should probably be wet and darker near the water line.  Another
nitpicking: the 'glow' seems very bright in relation to the sunlight.
Maybe it would be better to have a different object in the daylight
version (how about a  model ship with remote control?)

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

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> It's a Ridged MF.  I'm still getting the hang of using rmf.  Any good
> tutorials out there that show what the numbers actually do?  The
> descriptions in the MPov docs don't really tell me much, and they're slow to
> render, so I'm loathe to experiment much.
> 

I am planning to do something similar to my crackle tables with RMF for
illustration, but i did not yet have the time to work it out.  There are
more parameters for RMF so things will be more difficult.  Also it would
not be useful to only have only texture samples, because you can't easily
conclude how the corresponding isosurface looks like.  

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

In article <3adc4434@news.povray.org>, Geoff Wedig 
<wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote:

> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
> millions of drops? :/

Media, and some partially transparent boxes closer up. I've thought 
about the possibility of using isosurfaces, but never tried it...
Maybe create some meshes, each with a couple hundred or thousand 
raindrops, and distribute many copies of them through the scene.

-- 
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

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:



> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> 
>> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC image
>> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which version
>> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey, you
>> can see more, so more there must be!)
>> 
>> So what do people think?
>> 

> That looks really good although the sky is disgusting :-)

Well, yeah.  But it wasn't a serious attempt.  It came out nice enough for a
quickly thrown together thing.

> The photons look interesting although the structures seem quite large. 
> Nice to see someone else working on water photons too.  Is it possible to
> see some statistics?

Only used 20,000 photons, which isn't near enough for the size of the water
plane.  There's a lot of speckling.  What type of statistics did you want?

> The stones should probably be wet and darker near the water line.  Another
> nitpicking: the 'glow' seems very bright in relation to the sunlight.
> Maybe it would be better to have a different object in the daylight
> version (how about a  model ship with remote control?)

Yep.  Haven't started the retexturing work yet.  There is a 'water line',
but it's up higher, because it was for the mist rather than the water. 
Looks a little strange in this instance.

When talking about the glow, did you mean the light from it, or the glows
themselves?  The glows themselves aren't too bad, IMO, though they cast
perhaps too much light (you can still see their vague shadows), although,
depending on what he's throwing, that may be accurate.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Only used 20,000 photons, which isn't near enough for the size of the water
> plane.  There's a lot of speckling.  

You don't need the whole water plane, i elaborated this a bit in my
'outdoor water photons' experiments.  

If only 20000 photons are distributed over the whole water the light
structures are probably fairly random and not related to the water
structure.  

> What type of statistics did you want?
> 

mostly render and photon times.  

> 
> When talking about the glow, did you mean the light from it, or the glows
> themselves?  

I meant the glows themselves.  Imagine for example a fire in sunlight. 
Even  if it is very bright, it's brightness is hardly visible.  

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

Well maybe the sea is a bit more violent at theplace you life... in bahrain
I love the still water sea shore..........




"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3adc329a@news.povray.org...
> Saadat Saeed <saa### [at] batelcocombh> wrote:
>
> > Try to make the water a bit more still!
>
> More still?  I thought the water was a bit *too* still.  It looks a little
> flat.  Needs to have some rolling waves, I thought.
>
> Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Was it Tom Melly or Gilles Trans that did the 'Wet bird' scene? I remember
that fog was used to give the effect of rain. It is sort of the same thing
anyway...?!  If it worked for him, I guess it could work for you   :)

Nekar

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3adc57cd@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:
>
>
> > Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> > news:3adc4434@news.povray.org...
> >>
> >> Gack!  Anyone have a good method for doing rain that doesn't involve
> >> millions of drops? :/
>
> > Try a plane/box very close to the camera with a mostly transparent
> > bozo texture. Should be fairly convincing, especially if you also
> > use a fog/media for murkiness
>
> Hmm, yeah, I could try that.  If I scale it a bit, and rotate it to get an
> angle.  Yeah, could work.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> Maybe I should have the storm coming in, then I don't have to have actual
> rain in the picture. :/
>
> Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:



> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> 
>> Only used 20,000 photons, which isn't near enough for the size of the water
>> plane.  There's a lot of speckling.  

> You don't need the whole water plane, i elaborated this a bit in my
> 'outdoor water photons' experiments.  

> If only 20000 photons are distributed over the whole water the light
> structures are probably fairly random and not related to the water
> structure.  

Well, the water isn't really all that big, maybe 200 x 300 feet (in my
personal scaling 1 pov unit = 1 foot.  Makes visualization easier)  What do
you suggest doing for the water?  A small photoned area cut out from the
rest?  I don't like doing differences with isos, so I'm not certain that's a
good idea.

>> What type of statistics did you want?
>> 

> mostly render and photon times.  

That's really tricky.  I'm using PVMega, so most output is mostly
surpressed.  The full picture took 72:56:00 using 15 PII 400's running
Mosix.  Probably not as long as the Tulip pic on a single processor, but I'm
not about to try it. :/

This was significantly longer than the darkness pictures, despite those
having the major light sources within scattering media, and area lights
besides.  The bright picture uses a far off point light, so photons slow
things down immensely (of course, photons + isos + radiosity is never going
to be fast)

>> 
>> When talking about the glow, did you mean the light from it, or the glows
>> themselves?  

> I meant the glows themselves.  Imagine for example a fire in sunlight. 
> Even  if it is very bright, it's brightness is hardly visible.  

Ah, that doesn't bother me.  You can still see the fire, after all, and the
glow isn't that much brighter than the surrounding bricks.  I may tone it
down slightly, but not much.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos <vir### [at] iconcoza> wrote:

> Was it Tom Melly or Gilles Trans that did the 'Wet bird' scene? I remember
> that fog was used to give the effect of rain. It is sort of the same thing
> anyway...?!  If it worked for him, I guess it could work for you   :)

Hmm, maybe.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Well, the water isn't really all that big, maybe 200 x 300 feet (in my
> personal scaling 1 pov unit = 1 foot.  Makes visualization easier)  What do
> you suggest doing for the water?  A small photoned area cut out from the
> rest?  I don't like doing differences with isos, so I'm not certain that's a
> good idea.
> 

Exactly that, it's probably really worth trying, i not yet tried it with
isosurfaces, but i don't see a reason why it sould not work.  For a
realistic horizon you will need quite a large water shape so you would
even have no choice.  

> 
> That's really tricky.  I'm using PVMega, so most output is mostly
> surpressed.  The full picture took 72:56:00 using 15 PII 400's running
> Mosix.  Probably not as long as the Tulip pic on a single processor, but I'm
> not about to try it. :/
> 

That really sound quite long, the photon time is probably negligible
anyway with only 20000 photons.  

> This was significantly longer than the darkness pictures, despite those
> having the major light sources within scattering media, and area lights
> besides.  The bright picture uses a far off point light, so photons slow
> things down immensely (of course, photons + isos + radiosity is never going
> to be fast)
> 

I was just about to suggest a lower error_bound when i saw your picture
first, but it's probably out of question with such a slow render.  

BTW, do you use some kind of manual bounding for the bricks?

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:
>> 
>> Well, the water isn't really all that big, maybe 200 x 300 feet (in my
>> personal scaling 1 pov unit = 1 foot.  Makes visualization easier)  What do
>> you suggest doing for the water?  A small photoned area cut out from the
>> rest?  I don't like doing differences with isos, so I'm not certain that's a
>> good idea.
>> 

> Exactly that, it's probably really worth trying, i not yet tried it with
> isosurfaces, but i don't see a reason why it sould not work.  For a
> realistic horizon you will need quite a large water shape so you would
> even have no choice.  

Well, I'm trying it with a test render now.

>> 
>> That's really tricky.  I'm using PVMega, so most output is mostly
>> surpressed.  The full picture took 72:56:00 using 15 PII 400's running
>> Mosix.  Probably not as long as the Tulip pic on a single processor, but I'm
>> not about to try it. :/
>> 

> That really sound quite long, the photon time is probably negligible
> anyway with only 20000 photons.  

The dark pictures take between 12-24 hours with the same setup (and varying
levels of detail).  To be honest, I'm finding PVM much slower than I would
have thought.  Perhaps ti's the radiosity (which PVMega has trouble with),
but the same things running on my desktop 1 Ghz Athlon seem to zip much
faster.  Either the information swapping is much greater than I expected, or
something.

>> This was significantly longer than the darkness pictures, despite those
>> having the major light sources within scattering media, and area lights
>> besides.  The bright picture uses a far off point light, so photons slow
>> things down immensely (of course, photons + isos + radiosity is never going
>> to be fast)
>> 

> I was just about to suggest a lower error_bound when i saw your picture
> first, but it's probably out of question with such a slow render.  

> BTW, do you use some kind of manual bounding for the bricks?

Yes, the bounding block for each brick is calculated based upon the
positions of their eight vertices and the curvature of the tower they belong
to.  It's given a 1 % growth just to give a bit of extra room.

The bricks seemed to be the slowest part right now, and mostly due to the
textures.  The texures are many layers of procedural texture, and that makes
things quite slow.  I've wished more than once for a version optimized for
textures (using 3Dnow equivalents, since I gather those only do single
point) or a method of layering textures that's not quite so slow, but I
don't think that's really an option.

On the other hand, the 3-6 times slowdown when removing two area lights and
replacing with a single light source, but also adding a new iso with photons
seems to be fairly significant.

Geoff


Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Yes, the bounding block for each brick is calculated based upon the
> positions of their eight vertices and the curvature of the tower they belong
> to.  It's given a 1 % growth just to give a bit of extra room.
> 

How about a hierarchical bounding structure, i made very good experiences
with regular tilings using recursive macros, in your case things are much
more complicated of course.  

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:
>> 
>> Yes, the bounding block for each brick is calculated based upon the
>> positions of their eight vertices and the curvature of the tower they belong
>> to.  It's given a 1 % growth just to give a bit of extra room.
>> 

> How about a hierarchical bounding structure, i made very good experiences
> with regular tilings using recursive macros, in your case things are much
> more complicated of course.  

Well, sections are unioned together, so that should bound them somewhat. 
So, for example, the front tower is made up of the base unit, the upper
unit, the outward sloping part of the crennelations and the wall part of the
crennelations.  That what you're talking about, or are you thinking of
bounding it at smaller segments than that?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Well, sections are unioned together, so that should bound them somewhat.
> So, for example, the front tower is made up of the base unit, the upper
> unit, the outward sloping part of the crennelations and the wall part of the
> crennelations.  That what you're talking about, or are you thinking of
> bounding it at smaller segments than that?
> 

That surely already helps, but the more 'bounding levels' you have the
faster it gets.  I'm not sure how you build up the walls, but for example
horizontal slicing could work.  Then bound together two neighbored slices
and then put two of these blocks together and so on.  

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:
>> 
>> Well, sections are unioned together, so that should bound them somewhat.
>> So, for example, the front tower is made up of the base unit, the upper
>> unit, the outward sloping part of the crennelations and the wall part of the
>> crennelations.  That what you're talking about, or are you thinking of
>> bounding it at smaller segments than that?
>> 

> That surely already helps, but the more 'bounding levels' you have the
> faster it gets.  I'm not sure how you build up the walls, but for example
> horizontal slicing could work.  Then bound together two neighbored slices
> and then put two of these blocks together and so on.  

Unfortunately, there are rarely horizontal lines that go completely around
(if ever.  The algorithm is such that it tries to break both horizontal and
vertical lines)  I can do *some* breaking up by 

A. Reducing the number of blocks generated that aren't actually visible. 
This has already been done somewhat.

B. Breaking things behind the scenes.  The two foremost towers on the left,
for example, could be broken behind the crennelations and no one could tell.

But honestly, the untextured isos are pretty quick.  It's only when you
combine my complex textures with radiosity and so on that things get bad.  I
need to do some optimizing.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message