On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:24:02 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3CC70DE3.C9D07958@gmx.de...
>> Here's the original trace, not reduced in size. No focal-blur-AA,
>> because that's time-intensive and makes it look nicer, not
>> better.
> 
>     If you say so.
> 
>     I think this looks nice but I can't help but think that not having stair
> stepping on the shoots would help. But the larger resolution allows some of
> the detail that you worked so hard on show up.
> 
>     There is still the unfortunate areas of the glass that looks like
> coincident surfaces or something.

I agree with Bill here, and think that the glass problem may also go away
with some AA. 

-- 
sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
<50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/  * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\(    ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1} 
/*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~  -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */

Post a reply to this message

To you both:

Yeah, some AA would definetely look good.
Ther are no coincident surfaces, inside the vase,
the rays is refracted and reflected so often, that
even a setting of 256 max_trace_level doesn't
help, because the ray probably just travels long
enough inside the vase to get darkened by fade_power...
But it isn't so obvious with some focal blur, looks more
like some curious refraction.

But all you guys have to wait for a AA version, it takes
SOOO much longer, and I cannot afford doing intensive
traces before I'm actually on a version where I can say
finished...

Steve wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:24:02 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> > news:3CC70DE3.C9D07958@gmx.de...
> >> Here's the original trace, not reduced in size. No focal-blur-AA,
> >> because that's time-intensive and makes it look nicer, not
> >> better.
> >
> >     If you say so.
> >
> >     I think this looks nice but I can't help but think that not having stair
> > stepping on the shoots would help. But the larger resolution allows some of
> > the detail that you worked so hard on show up.
> >
> >     There is still the unfortunate areas of the glass that looks like
> > coincident surfaces or something.
>
> I agree with Bill here, and think that the glass problem may also go away
> with some AA.
>
> --
> sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
> <50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/  * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
> light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\(    ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1}
> /*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~  -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Not really. When using focal-blur, the sharp
edges of the shadows aren't visible. And since
its a studio-setting, too much area-light would
destroy the look.

Steve wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:54:02 +0200, Tim Nikias wrote:
> >
> > So, here is the last and final Gerbera-Composition. Any more
> > suggestions? Comments?
> > If there's nothing to change (no additions anymore),
> > this is going to be it.
> >
> > I tweaked the amount of smaller petals (from 500 to a more
> > realistic 120) and the look of the larger outside petals (to
> > match a real-life gerbera).
>
> You need area lights boy.
>
> --
> %HAV-A-NICEDAY                    email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
> Steve                                web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
>                                              or http://start.at/zero-pps
>  11:07am  up 6 days,  7:47,  1 user,  load average: 1.26, 1.23, 1.13

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, some AA would definetely look good.
> Ther are no coincident surfaces, inside the vase,
> the rays is refracted and reflected so often, that
> even a setting of 256 max_trace_level doesn't
> help, because the ray probably just travels long
> enough inside the vase to get darkened by fade_power...
> But it isn't so obvious with some focal blur, looks more
> like some curious refraction.
Try lower adc_bailout (if you haven't already)

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

Holy cats-- that's beauteous. Rocks the Casbah. Great job.

DZ



Tim Nikias wrote:

> So, here is the last and final Gerbera-Composition. Any more
> suggestions? Comments?

Post a reply to this message

I'll try, but I'm thinking it all has to do either
with the incoming ray being in such a strange
angle to the glass, that its just bouncing around
in the glass.
Ohterwise, it could also be related to the
smooth-triangles/mesh bug which cannot
be fixed in Povray 3.5 (the bug which also
affects heightfields and their correct tracing).

I'll see what I can do, but it doesn't look to bad actually.

TinCanMan wrote:

> > Yeah, some AA would definetely look good.
> > Ther are no coincident surfaces, inside the vase,
> > the rays is refracted and reflected so often, that
> > even a setting of 256 max_trace_level doesn't
> > help, because the ray probably just travels long
> > enough inside the vase to get darkened by fade_power...
> > But it isn't so obvious with some focal blur, looks more
> > like some curious refraction.
> Try lower adc_bailout (if you haven't already)
>
> -tgq

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

If you want to mail the vase to me within the next three hours, I can take a
look this evening and see if I can spot the problem.

 -Shay

Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3CC85619.15FEFEB2@gmx.de...

Post a reply to this message

I was running through my code and trying to prepare a
vase for you to look at. But, you'd be overloaded with
the "unknown". Tons of Macros of which I haven't
yet written good comments and descriptions, declarations
all around the place, though not in random order,
hard to describe.

I'll send a version without all but the vase, and
all the required includes I've written, but if you cannot
find through the mess, I won't complain. ;-)

In any case, thanks for your offer!

Shay wrote:

> If you want to mail the vase to me within the next three hours, I can take a
> look this evening and see if I can spot the problem.
>
>  -Shay
>

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3CC8596C.6C6145F5@gmx.de...
>
> I'll send a version without all but the vase, and
> all the required includes I've written, but if you cannot
> find through the mess, I won't complain. ;-)
>

Awesome. If you don't make the mail to me by 5:00 US Central standard time
(2:47 here now), I will email you my home email addy. I will look and see if
I can't find what's causing the appearance of a sharp edge along the top as
well.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I've taken care of the sharp edge (two meshes,
the inside and outside: inside based on outside,
that sharp edge was due to the same coords
for that area), so a new connection was made
using my cubic-bezier-splines-algorithm for
every two coords...
Like I said, mesh-modelling-macros...

And just sent it on its way.

Shay wrote:

> Awesome. If you don't make the mail to me by 5:00 US Central standard time
> (2:47 here now), I will email you my home email addy. I will look and see if
> I can't find what's causing the appearance of a sharp edge along the top as
> well.
>
>  -Shay

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message