 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: isosurface & radiosity test (86k)
Date: 11 Jul 2001 06:11:28
Message: <3B4C26D1.35D2537D@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>
> Very very impressive. It's amazing how good a "simple" isosurface can look :)
>
Thanks!
It is really quite simple, the agate pattern often leads to interesting
results with isosurfaces, although it's of course quite slow.
> Can you post the source please? I'd love to have a look at the isosurface and
> radiosity settings.
Is in p.t.s-f.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: isosurface & radiosity test (86k)
Date: 11 Jul 2001 06:12:58
Message: <3B4C272B.1171C564@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> Yike!
Thank you.
>
> source now dammit !!
>
Don't tell me you want to start coding isosurfaces... ;-)
See in p.t.s-f. anyway.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: isosurface & radiosity test (86k)
Date: 11 Jul 2001 06:17:26
Message: <3B4C2836.C68B6286@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob H." wrote:
>
> No less than incredible. A *real* beautiful render.
>
Thanks Bob, glad you like it.
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 <3B4B6914.A2A00614@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann says...
>
> I again started making some experiments with isosurfaces and radiosity,
> now with a new faster computer that's much more fun than before, but still
> quite slow.
>
> The isosurface function is fairly simple, a 'blob' from a plane and a
> sphere with an agate pigment function added.
>
> The radiosity quality settings are quite high, probably could reduce count
> to some extend without visible artefacts. The scene took 52 hours to
> render at this size, statistics showed an incredible amount of 105 billion
> DNoise calls, again a sign that current isosurface code is far from being
> efficient with slow isosurface functions.
>
> Christoph
>
Return to Mars! Great!!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: isosurface & radiosity test (86k)
Date: 12 Jul 2001 16:29:27
Message: <3B4E0932.4F907893@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> >
> Return to Mars! Great!!
Not really sure if mars would look like that, but thank anyway.
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 wrote:
>
> That's a general problem with isosurfaces, you often can't prevent parts
> to separate from the surface.
Yeah. It's easy enough with just a plane, but with a blob i don't know
how you'd do it. POV needs surface displacement! :)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: isosurface & radiosity test (86k)
Date: 12 Jul 2001 17:06:05
Message: <3B4E11C6.509065B1@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Yeah. It's easy enough with just a plane, but with a blob i don't know
> how you'd do it. POV needs surface displacement! :)
>
Surface displacement only works in normal direction of the surface,
therefore it would not help much here. Anyway surface displaced meshes
would be an interesting thing.
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" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3B4E073A.9EAB3BF4@faricy.net...
>
> Yeah. It's easy enough with just a plane
How so?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3b4eae0d@news.povray.org...
> "David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
> news:3B4E073A.9EAB3BF4@faricy.net...
> >
> > Yeah. It's easy enough with just a plane
>
> How so?
>
function {y - F_Func(x,0,z) }
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 in message
news:3b4eaea5@news.povray.org...
>
> > > Yeah. It's easy enough with just a plane
> >
> > How so?
> >
>
> function {y - F_Func(x,0,z) }
>
Silly me - I've taken another look at my iso-plane (which I "remembered" was
separating). It doesn't, but some of the protuberences are very unnatural*
unless I really scale the function down. BTW I've just posted the scene in
question.
*for an object under gravity
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
