See the initial posting in povray.general.
Here is initial scene. The only real object is the
dome of St.Paul Cathedral modeled by Ib Rasmussen.
The sphere with radius 0.1 was placed there just to
define origin and estimate scale.
Let's add more life to the image :) Any constructive
comments and input will be appriciated.
Take the source in p.b.s.-f., add your ideas and
experience to it and show the result in this group.
Let's start :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capricio.jpg' (28 KB)

Preview of image 'capricio.jpg'

Pretty cool.  But there ought to be some kind of reason given for the
levitation: either rocket boosters or perhaps it sitting on a slab of very
natural rock in midair.  Right now the unfinished nature of the bottom of
the dome makes it  look like, er, raytracing where two objects are simply
put in the scene.

Post a reply to this message

> Pretty cool.  But there ought to be some kind of reason given for the
> levitation: either rocket boosters or perhaps it sitting on a slab of very
> natural rock in midair.  Right now the unfinished nature of the bottom of
> the dome makes it  look like, er, raytracing where two objects are simply
> put in the scene.

Here is the reference image:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/AWork?id=9296
So eventually the bottom of the dome will be hidden
by the cathedral facade.

See the initial thread about the image in povray.general.
If you want to join the source is available in
povray.binaries.scene-files

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Here is my first contribution.  I changed quite a lot but feel free to
remove any of the changes again.  I thought it would be good to have a
scale of about 1 meter per unit.  Scaling is probably still somewhat
wrong, i'm not very used to model in left handed system...

The lighting is just provisonal, it would be important to set up something
good for that before detail work on textures is done.

The water structure is of course provisonal, the final one can obviously
not be made before the position of the houses and boats etc. is fixed.

Source in p.b.s-f.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capricio.jpg' (45 KB)

Preview of image 'capricio.jpg'

Wow! It looks great already even with current settings.
Finally I decided to prepare hand-painted textures for houses
after many attempts to use procedural textures. I'll create it for
underwater part as well so that it will be visible for some depth
as in your example here. Hopefully I'll come up with one house
by the end of this week.

Gena.

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Here is my first contribution.  I changed quite a lot but feel free to
> remove any of the changes again.  I thought it would be good to have a
> scale of about 1 meter per unit.  Scaling is probably still somewhat
> wrong, i'm not very used to model in left handed system...
>
> The lighting is just provisonal, it would be important to set up something
> good for that before detail work on textures is done.
>
> The water structure is of course provisonal, the final one can obviously
> not be made before the position of the houses and boats etc. is fixed.
>
> Source in p.b.s-f.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Added one house with hand-made image maps.
More houses coming soon :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capricio.jpg' (35 KB)

Preview of image 'capricio.jpg'

Gena Obukhov wrote:
> 
> Added one house with hand-made image maps.
> More houses coming soon :)
> 

Nice work on the house.

I must say i liked my sky more. :-)  This one is rather green.  Of course
the clouds could change a lot about that.

I think it would be important to have the final light setup before
designing the textures, the appearance could change significantly.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

> I must say i liked my sky more. :-)  This one is rather green.  Of course
> the clouds could change a lot about that.

Let's decide which time we are going to depict. I suggest it should
be around 5-6 p.m. :) So it's not yet sunset but also it's not a middle
of the day already. The light should be warm with some yellowish hues.

> I think it would be important to have the final light setup before
> designing the textures, the appearance could change significantly.

I agree. If you will have a look to the texture for the house in any
image viewer you'll see that it's very bright and contrast image
but in the scene it doesn't look that way. I tuned colors very
much to make it look more or less colorful in the scene.

We have to find out right light source position, color and
brightness. It's hard to do it right now because we don't have all
objects in place so it's difficult to predict shadows.
Maybe we have to place in scene dummy objects for all houses.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena Obukhov wrote:
> Added one house with hand-made image maps.
> More houses coming soon :)
> 
> Gena.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
That house looks excellent

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:49:49 -0800, Gena Obukhov wrote:

> Added one house with hand-made image maps.
> More houses coming soon :)
> 
> Gena.

If you're trying to eventually cover that hovering tower with other houses 
eventually, I think it could use some kind of a dummy base to begin with 
which might help the lighting look more convincing. That or I'm just too 
picky. ;-)

-- 
light_source#macro G(E)sphere{z+E*y*5e-3.04rotate-z*E*6pigment{rgbt#end{
20*y-10#local n=162;1}#while(n)#local n=n-.3;G(n)x}}G(-n).7}}#end//GregE

Post a reply to this message

Without a doubt an interesting subject. Great model too, incredible. I've
jumped in here to try it out myself but mainly just to render the scene
file, then I wanted to create a mockup of the front of that building to make
it less surreal. I soon realized the scale doesn't look right somehow. The
dome might be too far away and possibly too large for this setting
(foreground buildings). I found another picture by using google image
search, this time a very old photo.

http://www.forgottenfutures.com/library/venice/venice5.gif

There's some different detail to the dome as seen there compared with the
painting. I'm not 100% positive these are the same thing but it sure matches
up okay with the painting aside from perspective. This idea of copying a
painting is certainly a great excercise in getting lighting and objects in
order.

Here's my rendering of it so far, with changes to the lighting and sky as
well as the addition. Which is there only to stand in until more is done, if
I ever get around to it. I won't post source unless asked because this might
never get anywhere, and somebody else might do better anyhow.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capricfront.jpg' (13 KB)

Preview of image 'capricfront.jpg'

It's a very good contribution! Welcome to the club :)
Go ahead and post your sources. I think it's OK
if something will be changed or replaced later on.
We just have to keep in mind that we have to improve
image not just change it :) So I don't mind if you will
change my objects/textures if those changes will
improve the scene overall :)

I understand that everybody has his/her own opinion about
improvements :) I think this is one of the main challenges
in this process - to find out the consensus :)

Gena.

"Hughes, B." wrote:

> Without a doubt an interesting subject. Great model too, incredible. I've
> jumped in here to try it out myself but mainly just to render the scene
> file, then I wanted to create a mockup of the front of that building to make
> it less surreal. I soon realized the scale doesn't look right somehow. The
> dome might be too far away and possibly too large for this setting
> (foreground buildings). I found another picture by using google image
> search, this time a very old photo.
>
> http://www.forgottenfutures.com/library/venice/venice5.gif
>
> There's some different detail to the dome as seen there compared with the
> painting. I'm not 100% positive these are the same thing but it sure matches
> up okay with the painting aside from perspective. This idea of copying a
> painting is certainly a great excercise in getting lighting and objects in
> order.
>
> Here's my rendering of it so far, with changes to the lighting and sky as
> well as the addition. Which is there only to stand in until more is done, if
> I ever get around to it. I won't post source unless asked because this might
> never get anywhere, and somebody else might do better anyhow.
>
> Bob H.
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

"Gena" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3E88860D.97CD8EBF@mail.com...
> It's a very good contribution! Welcome to the club :)

 Thanks!

> Go ahead and post your sources. I think it's OK
> if something will be changed or replaced later on.

Alright, I'm putting it with the other in that thread at p.b.s-f and naming
the zip file capricio5. It has all the files again plus mine.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Added three new buildings (without textures yet).
See the source in p.b.s.-f. More houses coming soon.
Feel free to modify/improve the scene and to add
your own objects.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'capricio.jpg' (24 KB)

Preview of image 'capricio.jpg'

Great! It sure is getting there. Having looked again at the painting I see
that those buildings on the right side need to be much taller. I was only
throwing boxes in without checking on that first. Which is kinda the way I
went about piecing together the front of the St. Paul's building. The
painting is also very dark, I was trying to get a sunny day appearance so I
could see it all better while making stuff. Speaking of that, I sure hope
nobody tries the clouds, way too slow.

"Gena Obukhov" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3E8AA556.D8430C16@mail.com...
> Added three new buildings (without textures yet).
> See the source in p.b.s.-f. More houses coming soon.
> Feel free to modify/improve the scene and to add
> your own objects.

Post a reply to this message

If you compare the original image with the
one posted, you'll notice that the foreground
buildings are too far away from the St. Paul's.

Additionally, I think the sun's position in the
image isn't correct. If you look at the front
of St. Paul's in the original, you'll notice its
mostly in shadows.

Aside of that, I don't know where I could
contribute to this. My Water-Surface would
surely be overkill for this image, and isn't finished.
I could try to recreate some nice clouds for
the background via subsurface-scattering,
but I'm not sure if this is wanted, and I've read
that you'd want to use skylight.inc or so for
the background...
I'm no good at building buildings, and never
even tried to go for boats yet. So aside of
the media-clouds, nothing I could contribute. :-(

--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> Great! It sure is getting there. Having looked again at the painting I see
> that those buildings on the right side need to be much taller. I was only
> throwing boxes in without checking on that first. Which is kinda the way I
> went about piecing together the front of the St. Paul's building. The
> painting is also very dark, I was trying to get a sunny day appearance so
I
> could see it all better while making stuff. Speaking of that, I sure hope
> nobody tries the clouds, way too slow.
>
> "Gena Obukhov" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
> news:3E8AA556.D8430C16@mail.com...
> > Added three new buildings (without textures yet).
> > See the source in p.b.s.-f. More houses coming soon.
> > Feel free to modify/improve the scene and to add
> > your own objects.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias v2.0" wrote:

> If you compare the original image with the
> one posted, you'll notice that the foreground
> buildings are too far away from the St. Paul's.
>
> Additionally, I think the sun's position in the
> image isn't correct. If you look at the front
> of St. Paul's in the original, you'll notice its
> mostly in shadows.

Those changes would be a good contribution from you :)


> Aside of that, I don't know where I could
> contribute to this...

There are still many places which need to be done and
which are waiting for volunteers:

- Sky/clouds. It would be good to have several variants
  implemented with different techniques. So that we could
  compare and select which one fits better. I mean such
  techniques as high resolution image map on plane or big
  sphere, stack of planes, media or anything else.

- Buildings. It's not necessary to create the whole building.
  You could just model that clock on the wall of the cathedral.
  Or make window tents for some buildings (using sPatch,
  Hamapatch or JPatch) with uv-mapped textures. If you
  have painting skills you can paint those houses which are not
  painted yet. Also there is ornament on the facade of the
  cathedral we could mimic it with height-field.

- People. It's always the challenge to make a human figure.
  It looks like we cannot use Poser objects because they are not
  free. That's why I see only the following alternatives - either
  use some freeware models (if any) or make own objects (using
  above-mentioned patch modellers) or prepare some partly
  transparent image maps (this technique is widely used in 3D
  architecture projects).

- Stairway in the foreground and wooden posts are good
  candidates for height-field or isosurface.

- Boats/Sails. It could be modelled with above-mentioned patch
  modellers or Wings3D. Sails could have uv-mapped textures.

- We can also add some POV-Ray touch to the final image -
  to place somewhere reflective ball on a checkered floor :)

You are welcome to work on any item  and use any technique :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> 
> - People. It's always the challenge to make a human figure.
>   It looks like we cannot use Poser objects because they are not
>   free. That's why I see only the following alternatives - either
>   use some freeware models (if any) or make own objects (using
>   above-mentioned patch modellers) or prepare some partly
>   transparent image maps (this technique is widely used in 3D
>   architecture projects).
>



I am modelling some figures in Wings 3D.
Should have something soon.
-Jim

Post a reply to this message

I'll try and work on some subsurface-scattering clouds then,
thats what I've got good experience with (Iced Land, Worldbowl).

This'll need some time though. I'll download the latest scene-
compilation and just take the lighting-setup to work on the clouds.
As for the lighting-setup itself, that should be up to someone
else. I'll just create some nice clouds.

Regards,
Tim

--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> "Tim Nikias v2.0" wrote:
>
> > If you compare the original image with the
> > one posted, you'll notice that the foreground
> > buildings are too far away from the St. Paul's.
> >
> > Additionally, I think the sun's position in the
> > image isn't correct. If you look at the front
> > of St. Paul's in the original, you'll notice its
> > mostly in shadows.
>
> Those changes would be a good contribution from you :)
>
>
> > Aside of that, I don't know where I could
> > contribute to this...
>
> There are still many places which need to be done and
> which are waiting for volunteers:
>
> - Sky/clouds. It would be good to have several variants
>   implemented with different techniques. So that we could
>   compare and select which one fits better. I mean such
>   techniques as high resolution image map on plane or big
>   sphere, stack of planes, media or anything else.
>
> - Buildings. It's not necessary to create the whole building.
>   You could just model that clock on the wall of the cathedral.
>   Or make window tents for some buildings (using sPatch,
>   Hamapatch or JPatch) with uv-mapped textures. If you
>   have painting skills you can paint those houses which are not
>   painted yet. Also there is ornament on the facade of the
>   cathedral we could mimic it with height-field.
>
> - People. It's always the challenge to make a human figure.
>   It looks like we cannot use Poser objects because they are not
>   free. That's why I see only the following alternatives - either
>   use some freeware models (if any) or make own objects (using
>   above-mentioned patch modellers) or prepare some partly
>   transparent image maps (this technique is widely used in 3D
>   architecture projects).
>
> - Stairway in the foreground and wooden posts are good
>   candidates for height-field or isosurface.
>
> - Boats/Sails. It could be modelled with above-mentioned patch
>   modellers or Wings3D. Sails could have uv-mapped textures.
>
> - We can also add some POV-Ray touch to the final image -
>   to place somewhere reflective ball on a checkered floor :)
>
> You are welcome to work on any item  and use any technique :)
>
> Gena.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I added the standing figure on the steps near the slip on the right.  I 
also adjusted the building placers on the right to try and get a truer 
skyline.  In order to get the steps in the foreground I lowered the 
water level 1 unit.  If this is okay I will continue to model the stairs 
and the woman in the foreground.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'v7.jpg' (41 KB)

Preview of image 'v7.jpg'

On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 03:45:01 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I added the standing figure on the steps near the slip on the right.  I 
> also adjusted the building placers on the right to try and get a truer 
> skyline.  In order to get the steps in the foreground I lowered the 
> water level 1 unit.  If this is okay I will continue to model the stairs 
> and the woman in the foreground.

While I can't help I appreciate this cooperative work and I imagine this poster
will be later available in zazzle.com to donate povray.org. But I wonder if your
figures are ready for 8000x8000 poster resolution ? Any zoom ?

ABX

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e8d4528@news.povray.org...
> I added the standing figure on the steps near the slip on the right.  I
> also adjusted the building placers on the right to try and get a truer
> skyline.  In order to get the steps in the foreground I lowered the
> water level 1 unit.  If this is okay I will continue to model the stairs
> and the woman in the foreground.

Tides out. Either going to need to raise the steps or lower everything else.
I'll have to take your word for it, about that being a woman standing there.
:-)

This has a much better appearance now with a human in it, until I notice
just how unfinished it all is. Those placeholders for statues on St. Paul's,
among the general lack of detail, could use some sculpting.

How is the human figure done? Mesh model, or primitives?

As ABX pointed out, it might all suffer at high resolution, but this is
still a WIP and things will change anyway. But as it is, the major task at
hand is probably in matching the detail of the original dome part of the
picture. It's a fine model Ib Rasmusen made of that. Quoting him about it,
"My model and textures are actually based on photos of a (physical) model of
the dome. I have never tried to get it to look like the real building."
Although it does look rather realistic to me, even with closer views. I had
wondered about the light brown-orange coloring though.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

> 
> While I can't help I appreciate this cooperative work and I imagine this poster
> will be later available in zazzle.com to donate povray.org. But I wonder if your
> figures are ready for 8000x8000 poster resolution ? Any zoom ?
> 
> ABX

Actually I was thinking of tweaking the figure to reduce the poly count. 
  However I can easily work in more detail.  That is the flexibility of 
using mesh.  The main problem is in the resolution of the source image. 
   To get up to the poster resolution you suggest I would have to start 
inventing detail.  I am happy to take it in either direction.  Can we 
have some discussion on this?  Poly count vs invented detail?

Post a reply to this message

Hughes, B. wrote:

> Tides out. Either going to need to raise the steps or lower everything else.
> I'll have to take your word for it, about that being a woman standing there.
> :-)
> 
The standing figure is probably male.  But there is what looks to be a 
female sitting on the steps.  If I am to model her I need the steps to 
be there.  The water at its former level covers them.  We need this 
problem to be resolved then I will move on and model the steps properly 
and the woman.  Other figures I spot are in the near boat behind the 
steps, in the gondola in the distance, and on the bow of the boat on the 
left. I am using a 8 head high figure.  From what I see, this would have 
been a common formula in the 18th century. Is anyone doing the boats 
btw?  Awaiting further discussion...
>  
> How is the human figure done? Mesh model, or primitives?
> 
Mesh, modelled and uvmapped in Wings3d.

Post a reply to this message

Wow! The city is not ready yet for living but it becomes populated
already :)
Good model, at least what I can see at this resolution. I don't know
if we need faces for those people but if we do I can save one of my
sPatch models in DXF format for example. Just let me know.
As for houses rearranging, I think we need previous water level
otherwise it's impossible to enter that house with stairway on the left
side :) To get right skyline maybe we have to low camera position
instead.
Is it possible to see that figure (only figure) in a higher resolution.
Go ahead and model another people. We can rearrange everything
later on.
We have a good progress already :)

Gena.

Jim Charter wrote:

> I added the standing figure on the steps near the slip on the right.  I
> also adjusted the building placers on the right to try and get a truer
> skyline.  In order to get the steps in the foreground I lowered the
> water level 1 unit.  If this is okay I will continue to model the stairs
> and the woman in the foreground.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

> The standing figure is probably male.  But there is what looks to be a
> female sitting on the steps.

I'll post high resolution fragment of that part of the painting today in
this thread. There is also a child with that woman :)

> been a common formula in the 18th century. Is anyone doing the boats
> btw?  Awaiting further discussion...

As far as I know Txemi Jendrix was going to participate in this
field. I don't know the progress though :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Let's decide which resolution we will eventually use.
If we are going to make a poster from this image
it should be not less than 3000*4000 with AA or 6000*8000
without AA and scaled to 3000*4000. So if you have
doubts about details try to render your objects in this
resolution.

Gena.

Jim Charter wrote:

> >
> > While I can't help I appreciate this cooperative work and I imagine this poster
> > will be later available in zazzle.com to donate povray.org. But I wonder if your
> > figures are ready for 8000x8000 poster resolution ? Any zoom ?
> >
> > ABX
>
> Actually I was thinking of tweaking the figure to reduce the poly count.
>   However I can easily work in more detail.  That is the flexibility of
> using mesh.  The main problem is in the resolution of the source image.
>    To get up to the poster resolution you suggest I would have to start
> inventing detail.  I am happy to take it in either direction.  Can we
> have some discussion on this?  Poly count vs invented detail?

Post a reply to this message

> ...picture. It's a fine model Ib Rasmusen made of that. Quoting him about it,
> "My model and textures are actually based on photos of a (physical) model of
> the dome. I have never tried to get it to look like the real building."
> Although it does look rather realistic to me, even with closer views. I had
> wondered about the light brown-orange coloring though.

I can take care of it later on (when I'll finish houses :)
If anybody else can do it you are welcome.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:

> As for houses rearranging, I think we need previous water leve
> otherwise it's impossible to enter that house with stairway on the left
> side :) 


>To get right skyline maybe we have to low camera position

It's a problem, I think we would have to raise the camera if we also 
raise the steps and water.  We need to look down into the boat, for 
instance.  Also the mans head should align with the base of the St Pauls 
entrance.  But raising the camera may cause other misalignments.
The foreground steps have a very tricky angle in them and it is 
precisely where the figure of the woman is sitting, so I would like to 
be able to model the steps. I posted my code so you can play with it.  I 
will start modelling some of the easier figures, any high res shots you 
can post would be very appreciated

> instead.
> Is it possible to see that figure (only figure) in a higher resolution.

Attached is a look at the mesh after one smoothing.  Will do the higher 
res render in a moment.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'manonslip.jpg' (23 KB)

Preview of image 'manonslip.jpg'

> instance.  Also the mans head should align with the base of the St Pauls
> entrance.  But raising the camera may cause other misalignments.
> The foreground steps have a very tricky angle in them and it is
> precisely where the figure of the woman is sitting, so I would like to
> be able to model the steps. I posted my code so you can play with it.  I
> will start modelling some of the easier figures, any high res shots you
> can post would be very appreciated

I think we don't have to copy the reference painting one by one. We just
have to use it as a reference. So some differences should not be considered
as a big problem :)
I 'll post some high res. fragments today in the evening (PST).

> Attached is a look at the mesh after one smoothing.  Will do the higher
> res render in a moment.

Looks great! Maybe just lacks some creases on the clothes I hope that
eventually we will have a tutorial on your web site how you did that :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:

> 
> I think we don't have to copy the reference painting one by one. We just
> have to use it as a reference. So some differences should not be considered
> as a big problem :)
Gotcha
> 
> Looks great! Maybe just lacks some creases on the clothes 

Yes I see on the high res render that creases in the clothes will be 
necessary.  So I will tweak it further.  Think I may have gotten a virus 
though, so you might miss me for awhile if I have to reinstall.

-Jim

>

Post a reply to this message

> Yes I see on the high res render that creases in the clothes will be
> necessary.  So I will tweak it further.  Think I may have gotten a virus
> though, so you might miss me for awhile if I have to reinstall.

Maybe it makes sense to try to simulate it with textures/normals
because real creases can drastically increase mesh size.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

"Gena" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3E8DE0C5.D3D845BD@mail.com...
>
> I think we don't have to copy the reference painting one by one. We just
> have to use it as a reference. So some differences should not be
considered
> as a big problem

Exact duplication would be difficult. I had only opened the two pictures to
look at them once and a while as I built up the model of the front of the
cathedral. I was mismatching positions of objects quite a bit. It doesn't
have parts aligned with each other, much less the rest of the scene. Guess
you could say I only put a sketch or draft together.

Post a reply to this message

Figuring this to be a good example for POV's histogram feature I gave it a
try. Been a while since I had done one of these. You can see that the most
calculation intensive parts seem to be occuring at the shadow edges. What I
was expecting to find instead was a bright spot where the top of the dome
meets the part atop it, since that's where I notice the most slowdown occur.
Or so it appears to me as I watch the rendering take place.

This image was doubled in size from original, no radiosity and no AA was
done. I also changed contrast in the post process so it would show better.
Oh, and it is a pixel by pixel histogram, not one of blocks of pixels.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'caprihistogram.jpg' (16 KB)

Preview of image 'caprihistogram.jpg'

Gena wrote:
>  >
> Maybe it makes sense to try to simulate it with textures/normals
> because real creases can drastically increase mesh size.

Well I think I can at least beat the poly count that including a poser 
figure would entail.  Let's just say that it is the challenge that 
interests me at the moment.  I think it should be possible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Here you are.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'c1.jpg' (13 KB) Download 'c2.jpg' (10 KB) Download 'c3.jpg' (13 KB)

Preview of image 'c1.jpg'

Preview of image 'c2.jpg'

Preview of image 'c3.jpg'

"Gena Obukhov" <obu### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3E8E540A.2B539F19@mail.com...
> Here you are.

   Heh... the mum looks transparent. You can see the top step through
her body. Am I right, or is it too early in the morning?

      ~Steve~

>
> Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Hughes, B. wrote:

> was expecting to find instead was a bright spot where the top of the dome
> meets the part atop it, since that's where I notice the most slowdown occur.
> Or so it appears to me as I watch the rendering take place.


I think you can improve the renderspeed of the dome part considerably 
with a bit of manual bounding. Try adding something like
    bounded_by { box { <-60, 0, -593>, <60, 655, 0> } }
to the declarations of Dome_A and Dome_B in the stpaul.inc file.

(Back in '96, when I made the model, I obviously wasn't as aware of the 
limitations of auto-bounding, as I am today :)

/Ib

Post a reply to this message

Here is a 3000 x 3720 res version of the figure in its current state.
c & c ?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fig.jpg' (9 KB)

Preview of image 'fig.jpg'

Jim Charter wrote:

> Here is a 3000 x 3720 res version of the figure in its current state.
> c & c ?

It looks great! I think something is wrong with aspect ratio of
this image. I tried to correct it and also played with creases and
head proportions in Photoshop.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fig.jpg' (10 KB)

Preview of image 'fig.jpg'