 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wolfgang Manousek wrote:
>
> I love the water ...
Thank you.
>
> will you share the source ?
>
Hmm, the water is in p.t.s-f
the rest is really quite ugly, so i would prefer not to post it :-)
If there are any questions on things feel free to ask.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Hmm, I like the first best... the second one's too grainy. Maybe smooth the
> bricks back a little and keep the photons.
>
I know, will try making it less strong and larger scale, it's quite
difficult to tweak things if it takes hours to do a simple test render...
> These are awesome!
>
Thanks!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alberto wrote:
>
> To me it's hard to say which image is the best. They are all great!.
>
Thank you.
> I think i'll keep with the last one because of the stones under the
> water. However I prefer the water of the first picture and I think you
> should keep the row of bricks at the top of the tunnel (2nd image).
I added them because the first version looks too uniform IMO. The 3rd
picture is already a try to combine the first and the second somehow.
> I can see you're making some tests with the stone normal. I think the
> normal of the second image is better (surely it takes more time to render).
Well, it actually is no normal, but real isosurface displacement :-)
The first and third one use normal though.
>
> About the color for the stones, at first I thought about green, but I'm
> not sure this will do any good for the image. Some white spots
> representing salt accumulation could be added but this doesn't solve
> your question.
>
I think i will mostly try to make it wet near the waterline and maybe add
some touch of green algae.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That water is excellent!
In general I like the third one best, but I think the from of the water in
the first is
even better. There are those flat areas in the third one, which are odd.
For the bricks I would suggest some bigger scaled granite function to break
the regular form.
To bad this stuff renders that slow!
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remarkable! I think the first packs the most punch. The seems wetter if you
will allow. While the regularity of the stones dones catch attention in the
first version, the following versions don't seem to improve much. The real
strength seems to be in the simple composition and the convincing suggestion
of texture for the few elements that make up the picture. I think just a
little more work on the stones would do it. I have one question...would there
be caustics on the tunnel ceiling?
/jc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3aede572@news.povray.org>, "Kevin Ellis"
<kev### [at] libertysurfcouk> wrote:
> I just looked at the source you gave and you seem to have used colored
> attenuation and realistic exponential attenuation, yet the MegaPov docs
> section 7.2 states 'Colored attenuation does work with this exponential
> attenuation also.'. So it seems that the color of the water is only coming
> from the actual pigment statement.
I'm not sure what you mean by this message...as you mentioned, the docs
say "Colored attenuation does work with this exponential attenuation
also.", and my experience is that this is correct. His scene uses
colored attenuation, so the color of the water comes in part from the
attenuation in the interior, not just the pigment as you said.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>
> That water is excellent!
Thanks!
> In general I like the third one best, but I think the from of the water in
> the first is
> even better.
> There are those flat areas in the third one, which are odd.
They are differently scaled, i thought the waves in the first one were a
bit large, maybe i should make them slightly higher than in the third.
> For the bricks I would suggest some bigger scaled granite function to break
> the regular form.
Hmm, i think i will try to avoid using a pigment function in the
isosurface, otherwise i will soon be no more able to render it... Anyway
i will make some tests with scaling.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
J Charter wrote:
>
> Remarkable! I think the first packs the most punch. The seems wetter if you
> will allow.
Thank you,
watering of the stones still has to be done, but i intent to make them
quite dry in the upper parts.
> While the regularity of the stones dones catch attention in the
> first version, the following versions don't seem to improve much. The real
> strength seems to be in the simple composition and the convincing suggestion
> of texture for the few elements that make up the picture. I think just a
> little more work on the stones would do it. I have one question...would there
> be caustics on the tunnel ceiling?
There are in the second and third one, but they are really hardly
visible. If anyone has suggestions how to improve that...
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 schrieb in Nachricht <3AEEACE3.B913C311@gmx.de>...
>Hmm, i think i will try to avoid using a pigment function in the
>isosurface, otherwise i will soon be no more able to render it...
Some scaled noise3d may work as well. But it is often to regular IMO.
Should be fast ...
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm not sure what you mean by this message...as you mentioned, the docs
> say "Colored attenuation does work with this exponential attenuation
> also.", and my experience is that this is correct. His scene uses
> colored attenuation, so the color of the water comes in part from the
> attenuation in the interior, not just the pigment as you said.
>
Oops, not sure why but I've always read it as 'does not', my eyes must have
been playing tricks on me and I've read it many times, I wonder why I've had
trouble with fade_color? I just put it down to that it didn't work with the
realistic attenuation, but I must have been doing something wrong, hmmm.
My sincerest apologies.
Kev
--
http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
