 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> OK, at least I've acheived something.
>
That's for sure! I've yet to achieve such results...
> > Light source seems to be quite close to clouds, as shadows seem to be
> > too big for given clouds. Or are there clouds, which are not visible?
>
> The clouds are contained in 2 individual boxes. The first one goes
> rom -<1000000,0,1000000> to <1000000,3000,1000000>, and is 4500 units above
> the ground plane. The second one goes from -<1000000,0,1000000> to
> <1000000,2000,1000000>, and is 15000 units above the ground plane. The
> light_source is at y*10000000, and the camera is at <10000,400,-30000>. I
> moved it up that high in order to see if the shadows were showing up,
> something which when closer to the plane is hard to confirm. What do you
> suggest?
Actually these shadows seem to be too dark, but this is probably result
from one light source. Adding other light source or using radiosity
(hmm, maybe not, considering current rendering time) could improve this.
And now when I think about it, it seems to me, like this scene setup
(camera in such high position) makes it somewhat unrealistic. If camera
is set in "normal" height, then this scene could look more realistic, I
guess. Or perhaps downscaling of clouds will help?
For displaying shadows one can use heightfield and place camera on top
of hill, I guess. Too bad, that rendering time is so big, as it does not
allow to experiment very much...
HTH,
Vahur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's for sure! I've yet to achieve such results...
<big grin> <proud look at my clouds>
> Actually these shadows seem to be too dark, but this is probably result
> from one light source.
I have 2 light_sources, actually, coming from the same spot, one has an
intensity of 1.3, and affects the media (media_attenuation on,
media_interaction on), the other has an intensity of 0.45 and does not
affect the media (media_attenuation off, media_interaction off).
> And now when I think about it, it seems to me, like this scene setup
> (camera in such high position) makes it somewhat unrealistic.
As I said before, I only moved it up that high to see if there were any
shadows or not. This is not mean to be a scene, or to develop into anything.
This was only done to make clouds. I will now copy-paste them into other
scenes, and adapt them as needed.
> Too bad that rendering time is so big, as it does not
> allow to experiment very much...
True, but I'm patient, and have other things to do besides sittig here and
waiting for it to render. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, crew, here's the story. I tried and tried (and tried and...)
to make the edges sharper without increasing render-time, but I'm afraid
it's unavoidable. Unless you add some noise or something, you're all just
going to have to live with the fact that the sharper they are, the more
visible the "planes" are. For example, the ones in the background (and the
ones in my post from the 26th), are rendered with about 12 intervals,
because the edges are really smooth, but the ones in front (the nice, big
fluffy ones) had to be rendered with 50 intervals in this post, and I'm
afraid that that might not be enough! (Zoom in, you'll see what I mean). So,
anyway, here they are. I consider them done. I won't do any more work on
them. Let some other crazy POVer with a faster processor rack his brains
perfecting them. I'm gonna get back to nice, quick-rendering grass...
Especially since I want to exploit my extra 128MB of fresh-installed RAM. :)
Oh, by the way, these took 1 hour, 40 minutes, 17 seconds to render
on my 400MHz Pentium II with 256MB of RAM (joy!) at a resolution of 300x200.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'klauds3.jpg' (12 KB)
Preview of image 'klauds3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some days ago, I was watching the sky, and thinking of the huge amount
of cloud images posted here, I said to myself : "If I took a photograph
of it, and posted it on pbi, pretending it's made with POV-Ray, would
they say that it looks realistic ?"... and the more I think of it,
the more it seems that the answer will be "no" is most cases.
The sky looks so often unrealistic ! So, I think there's a huge
difference between what people "idealizes" to be a realistic sky,
and the sheer reality of skieS...
So, to some exent, your clouds (as many others I've seen here
in the past months) *might* actually be realistic ! Just one of the
millions of millions possible skies...
A good support of this thinking is Dave Merchant's "delight" image,
in the "sea" IRTC.
That said, this "quest" for good-looking POV-Ray skies is exciting,
as it shows how you can have a thousand approaches to the same problem,
and how we evolved since the days of the old "sky" texture (you know,
the ugly one that can be seen on "skyvase").
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a4e326b@news.povray.org>, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholic org>
wrote:
> For example, the ones in the background (and the ones in my post from
> the 26th), are rendered with about 12 intervals, because the edges
> are really smooth, but the ones in front (the nice, big fluffy ones)
> had to be rendered with 50 intervals in this post, and I'm afraid
> that that might not be enough! (Zoom in, you'll see what I mean).
I suspect the problem is that you are using too many intervals, and that
method 3 can only do it's anti-aliasing within an interval. Since you
have so many intervals, many of which are entirely in flat areas which
only need a few samples, you are pushing up the minimum total number of
samples.
Try simply increasing the number of samples and adjusting the
aa_threshold and aa_level values instead, so it can skimp out on the
flat areas...you shouldn't even need to have more than 1 interval in
MegaPOV.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These look great Tony, I hope you've made the code
available somewhere. I'm sure that soon someone will
start to build on the progress that you have made here.
Thanks.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:51pm up 12 days, 10:13, 3 users, load average: 1.14, 1.24, 1.17
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm using method 2. Method 3 changes the color of the clouds in nassty
ways... Besides, you can use whatever method you want, and jitter and
whatnot. These are mine, and this is how they stay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I could post the code to pbsf or ptsf... which would you prefer? Do you want
comments?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looking very good, how about including a simple HF for the groud, might help
with the quest for realism :)
--
Rick
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://povray.co.uk
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patience... I'm working on a real scene that'll have them... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
