 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is something i have been working on these days, things turned out to
be very slow again...
The first picture is an early version without photons, but it looks quite
good IMO. It also took 'only' 16 hours.
The second one was the slowest, 4 hours for the photons (although they are
not much visible), 36 hours in total.
The third one is somehow a combination of the first two, quality settings
for both photons and radiosity were quite low, therefore the upper part
looks quite bad. It took 24 hours to render.
What's still missing is different coloring of the stones near and under
water. The versions with photons only have reflective photons, turning
refraction on leads to a visible line here water changes from with to
without photons.
Comments and suggestions welcome as always.
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
Attachments:
Download 'water_tunnel01.jpg' (47 KB)
Download 'water_tunnel02.jpg' (46 KB)
Download 'water_tunnel03.jpg' (46 KB)
Preview of image 'water_tunnel01.jpg'
Preview of image 'water_tunnel02.jpg'
Preview of image 'water_tunnel03.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
that is very nice. I'd love to see it animated!
:o)
Some of the best water I've seen in awhile.
--
Obscure homebrewed graphics utilities and some
pictures:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
Looks very nice, although the bricks could use a little dirtying up at the
water line. I was once trying something very similar yet I went for the cave
option, shame I lost the file.
Kev
--
http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
very nice work, you have more patience than i :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I love the water ...
will you share the source ?
thx
Wolfgan
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3AEC4DE5.818428F7@gmx.de...
>
> This is something i have been working on these days, things turned out to
> be very slow again...
>
> The first picture is an early version without photons, but it looks quite
> good IMO. It also took 'only' 16 hours.
>
> The second one was the slowest, 4 hours for the photons (although they are
> not much visible), 36 hours in total.
>
> The third one is somehow a combination of the first two, quality settings
> for both photons and radiosity were quite low, therefore the upper part
> looks quite bad. It took 24 hours to render.
>
> What's still missing is different coloring of the stones near and under
> water. The versions with photons only have reflective photons, turning
> refraction on leads to a visible line here water changes from with to
> without photons.
>
> Comments and suggestions welcome as always.
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To me it's hard to say which image is the best. They are all great!.
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
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).
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.
Alberto.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I like the first best... the second one's too grainy. Maybe smooth the
bricks back a little and keep the photons.
These are awesome!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote:
>
> that is very nice. I'd love to see it animated!
> :o)
:-)
BTW, RMF water would be quite difficult to animate anyway...
>
> Some of the best water I've seen in awhile.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Ellis wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Looks very nice, although the bricks could use a little dirtying up at the
> water line.
I know, will work on that...
> I was once trying something very similar yet I went for the cave
> option, shame I lost the file.
>
I thought about adding some rocky stuff outside.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> very nice work, you have more patience than i :)
>
And you have a faster machine than i :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmxde>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
