"Tony[B]" wrote:
> Maybe I haven't seen enough clay, but I would have to dissagree
> with the others about this being so "photorealistic".

I'm not sure what you mean.

I agree that the image as a whole is not photorealistic because of the
simple lighting.

But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?

I would think that the image would become rather photorealistic if the
lighting was improved using radiosity, but maybe the model/texture needs
some improvements too?

> The model itself, on the other hand, is very interesting.

Thanks!

> I like the details on the tail. The rounded teeth help it look
> less menacing, which is nice.

Well, it's supposed to look menacing, not cute...

> I kind of understand how you feel about it. I have little Nick
> which is still around here somewhere. He's very dear to my heart.

Does the clayman Nick exist in reality too, or is he trapped inside the
computer?

> I just look at him and think "Aren't you cute? Yes, you are.
> Yes, you are, you little clay thingy...". 8-)

I look at the piranha and think "Aren't you absentminded? Yes you are. Your
eyes are looking in different directions and I can literally see there's
noting inside your head...".

Then I wave my hand just in front of it and it doesn't react.

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

> But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?

The normals and lighting.

> Well, it's supposed to look menacing, not cute...

It's still menacing, but less-so... :)

> Does the clayman Nick exist in reality too, or is he trapped inside the
> computer?

He really is! :)

> Then I wave my hand just in front of it and it doesn't react.

:-D

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> > But what is it about the clay that you think looks fake?
>
> The normals and lighting.

Do you mean that:

A) Because of the poor lighting the normals look fake, but when radiosity is
used, the normals will probably look fine.

B) The normals look fake no matter the lighting. The normals need to be
improved themselves.

If B, how could the normals be improved?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

> A) Because of the poor lighting the normals look fake, but when radiosity
is
> used, the normals will probably look fine.

Radiosity will definitely help.

> If B, how could the normals be improved?

I really don't know. Like I said, maybe I haven't worked with enough clay,
but it looks awfully dirty. And I feel that we should be seeing some true
displacement, not just fake normals. Other than that, just relax... and send
me the source, already! I've been playing with radiosity all day waiting for
it.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9d7b0e@news.povray.org>, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> 
wrote:

> And I feel that we should be seeing some true displacement, not just 
> fake normals.

This should be possible by using it as a blob pattern in a pigment 
isosurface function, and displacing the isosurface.

-- 
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

> This should be possible by using it as a blob pattern in a pigment
> isosurface function, and displacing the isosurface.

I hadn't thought of that. Good idea. Well, of course, you created it, so it
was obvious to you, I'm sure. :)

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > And I feel that we should be seeing some true displacement,
> > not just fake normals.
>
> This should be possible by using it as a blob pattern in a
> pigment isosurface function, and displacing the isosurface.

That originally was my plan, but it turned out not to work very well.

The problem is that the blob has blob elements of greatly varying strengths.
So some parts of the blob is greatly affected by displacement, while other
parts are almost not affected at all.

Another problem is that not all parts of the fish should be affected equally
much. The back fin, the teeth and the pupils should not be displaced very
much, while larger chunks of clay should get big bumps. That is almost
impossible to achieve.

So to sum up: The model is displaced unevenly in uncontrollable ways, but I
need it to be displaced unevenly in a controllable way. I don't think that's
possible.

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a9e7e79@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> So to sum up: The model is displaced unevenly in uncontrollable ways, 
> but I need it to be displaced unevenly in a controllable way. I don't 
> think that's possible.

It *is* possible to have displacement be independant of gradient...just 
displace the coordinates you give to the blob function, instead of 
adding to/subtracting from the function. Use 3 displacement functions 
with outputs from -1 to 1, each one offset a bit so it doesn't 
synchronize with the others, and add their results to the blob function 
coordinates, multiplying by another function controlling the strength of 
the displacement.

function {
    BlobFunc(
        DispFuncX(x, y, z)*StrengthFunc(x, y, z) + x,
        DispFuncY(x, y, z)*StrengthFunc(x, y, z) + y,
        DispFuncZ(x, y, z)*StrengthFunc(x, y, z) + z
    )
}

-- 
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

In article <3a9d4d14@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> Oh I see - I thought lighting and lightning were spelled the same way, but
> they're not!
> 
> Lightning lighting lightning lighting lightning lighting.
> 
> I feel enlightninged now!

Ahem, "enlightened". Being "enlightninged" sounds rather painful, and 
potentially fatal.

"lighting": illumination. Position, brightness, color, etc. of lights in 
a scene.

"lightening": making lighter in color, increasing the amount of light.

"lightning": atmospheric discharges of high-voltage static electricity. 
Lightning has a lightening effect on the lighting of a scene, but is 
otherwise unrelated.

BTW, textures.inc also got this wrong, with the Lightening1 and 
Lightening2 textures, so don't feel too bad. It's called "English". ;-)

-- 
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

"Chris Huff" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
>
> > Oh I see - I thought lighting and lightning were spelled
> > the same way, but they're not!
> >
> > Lightning lighting lightning lighting lightning lighting.
> >
> > I feel enlightninged now!
>
> Ahem, "enlightened". Being "enlightninged" sounds rather
> painful, and potentially fatal.

I know, I know! The last line was a joke! :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 28)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message