Hugo wrote:

> I don't know why or how you are able to continue posting images of higher
> quality than most of us. 


Sure you do! A person just keeps learning new tricks and storing them 
away for future use. You think of an idea or feature and expand on it.

>These are some of the best radiosity scenes I've
> seen in POV!


With time you'll see more. The developers of POV(official and 
unofficial) have made radiosity faster and easier to use. More people 
are using it now, and more will be using it in the future.

> I'm especially impressed by the apparently small amount of time you need to
> code these things. You must have a lot of experience.

I've been using POV since version 3.1(about 4-5 years ago?).

-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

Artis wrote:

> Nice idea and image....
> 
> ...but that's just a cheap trick, you have to use media (^&


The problem with subsurface scattering via media is that the light still 
passes through in a straight line. The light isn't made diffuse after 
exiting the object, so all you get on the other side are objects that 
have clean shadows. I can only imagine how long a render would take with 
radiosity and media coupled together! This trick actually simulates the 
effect rather accurately, as far as I can tell.
But I know you must just be kidding, because who would want another 
person to endure a month-long render? ;)


-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

I absolutely AGREE!!!
Please post the source or render a 1152x864 version for my desktop...... :-P
And now for animation......!

--
Apache
POV-Ray Cloth experiments: http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
Email: apa### [at] yahoocom
ICQ: 146690431

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:
> 
> Hugo wrote:
> 
> > I don't know why or how you are able to continue posting images of higher
> > quality than most of us.
> 
> Sure you do! A person just keeps learning new tricks and storing them
> away for future use. You think of an idea or feature and expand on it.

Of course, having a fast machine helps. Your lamp image, for instance,
is apparently using fairly high-quality radiosity, with normal on, and
an area light to boot. I don't want to think about how long it would
take MY machine to render that.. or to do the requisite test renders to
make it look good.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:
> 
> Artis wrote:
> 
> > Nice idea and image....
> >
> > ...but that's just a cheap trick, you have to use media (^&
> 
> The problem with subsurface scattering via media is that the light still
> passes through in a straight line. The light isn't made diffuse after
> exiting the object, so all you get on the other side are objects that
> have clean shadows. I can only imagine how long a render would take with
> radiosity and media coupled together!

My tests with MegaPOV show that radiosity and media don't seem to work
together in the way you imply. In fact, I'm not really sure how they
work together at all; maybe radiosity is affected by emission media or something?

I've no idea if this was fixed in 3.5.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:
> 
> I'm glad that POV 3.5 now supports radiosity interaction with double
> illumination. When MegaPOV came out with it's double_illumination
> keyword, I tried a similar experiement with no apparent effects from the
> radiosity.
> This is just a simple test of this interaction involving a barn made
> from wood beams and fiberglass panels. Sun shines past a tall box
> casting partial light onto the barn, thus simulating scattered light inside.
> Questions, Comments?

Very neat, i never thought the effect could be that realistic.

One thing that i'm missing about double_illuminate is a possibility to
diminish the amount of light from the back surface, something like an
additional float parameter between 0 and 1. Of course for such scenes
where only the back side is visible there is no need for it.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 14 Jun. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

> I think I can render one next time I go on a hike
That'd be very much appreciated!
>  (when I'm home, the only things to do are done through the computer).
I know how that is ;) I just finished two more than a day long renders..
Pretty scary when you start thinking of how much time you spend in front of
the computer.. And how hard it is to do something else when you're at home
:)
> I will! Someday I'll even finish a scene!
I think the pictures you posted qualify for 'scene', more than 'test'. Looks
more finished than my few finished scenes ;)

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:

> My tests with MegaPOV show that radiosity and media don't seem to work
> together in the way you imply. In fact, I'm not really sure how they
> work together at all; maybe radiosity is affected by emission media or something?
> 
> I've no idea if this was fixed in 3.5.

 From the 3.5 docs:

"Media and Radiosity
Radiosity estimation can be affected by media. To enable this feature, 
       add media on to the radiosity{} block. The default is off"



-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> One thing that i'm missing about double_illuminate is a possibility to
> diminish the amount of light from the back surface, something like an
> additional float parameter between 0 and 1. Of course for such scenes
> where only the back side is visible there is no need for it.


I'm with you there. Even more than that, there should be optional 
double_illuminate keywords for texture_maps so you could make, for 
example, realistic leaves. You could simulate the effect of variable 
thickness on a very minute scale without having to use impossible media 
settings.



-- 
Samuel Benge

sbe### [at] caltelcom

Post a reply to this message

Oooo... That looks photoreal in some spots...

Post a reply to this message