I'm trying a different way of doing a dust storm on Mars by just using a
single container with many density maps instead of a multitude of blob
objects like I had done before.  It works okay, sort of.  What I ended up
with so far is very much an illusion, and to show what I mean by that I made
stereo pairs.  The one named with 3Dx is for cross-eyed viewing and the 3Dz
is diverged.
Also you can look at the larger image to see how it fairs as 2D only.  The
lander craft is over-sized to make it more obvious.  Controlling the dust
cloud has been hit and miss.
Careful, don't strain your eyes too much.    X-)

Bob H.
--
http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mdustc.jpg' (48 KB) Download '3Dzmdust.jpg' (31 KB) Download '3Dxmdust.jpg' (31 KB)

Preview of image 'mdustc.jpg'

Preview of image '3Dzmdust.jpg'

Preview of image '3Dxmdust.jpg'

What I ended up with so far is very much an illusion, and to show
what I mean by that I made stereo pairs.
Careful, don't strain your eyes too much.    X-)

Bob H.
***
Too late ;)
By illusion . . . do you mean that the dark area in the lower left is
supposed to be the suface but is actually *above* the other textures?
That's how it appears to me in the 3D anyway.
However, the light colored cloud across the back looks very much
like a dust cloud rising up into the sky in that view.

   The 3D shot looks to be about 360 pixels wide for each view and
that's quite a ways to stretch the eyes . . . most people probably will
have trouble seeing it without going blind.  Dependent of screen res.
  I've had lots of practice.
Seems like the limit for the separation is around 200 to keep the eyes
from freaking out but that really limits what you can display. Prints
viewed in a Steroscope though are quite amazing and there is no eye
strain.

  If you could get the layers to show up at the proper distances, that
would give a great effect of looking down on this scene from high.

  Check out my reply to your 3D inquire in the Door to Summer thread.
The 3D pic there uses high clouds to great effect.  That effect here
would be excellent for perspective.

**
Y

Post a reply to this message

My first impression of the pictures was that it looks somehow like stormy
water (except the colors of course).

The sharp structures in left foreground look somehow wrong for dust.

The upper third of the scene looks very nice though.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"yooper" <Out### [at] huntelnet> wrote in message
news:3a995da4@news.povray.org...
> By illusion . . . do you mean that the dark area in the lower left is
> supposed to be the suface but is actually *above* the other textures?

Yep.  I knew it would be obvious so I didn't bother to explain.
Advice about large 3D stereo pairs: move away from the monitor.  8-)
Replied to your other reply in that other thread.

I have some more of these at my stereoscopic web page
http://hometown.aol.com/wrld0rigin/3D.htm

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3A9### [at] gmxde...
>
> My first impression of the pictures was that it looks somehow like stormy
> water (except the colors of course).
>
> The sharp structures in left foreground look somehow wrong for dust.
>
> The upper third of the scene looks very nice though.

Thanks.  The part that ended up well above ground level in the lower left
was what I thought of as being like wind-blown snow or dust you see across
roads or arctic ice or something.
I did the stereo pair as a quick way to see where everything was.  Moving
the camera changes the appearance of the media so much it I figured it
wasn't a good option to try.
Since you mentioned stormy water I think I'll have to try that now.

Hmm, it's worse that I thought.  Well, it has it's good points I guess, see
for yourselves.  The reason for the thinness was because of my balancing out
large changes in brightness/darkness scattering does to it while trying to
keep a place to see the landing craft.  Basically my typical struggle with
media.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

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

Preview of image 'mediawaterwave.jpg'

"Bob H." wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  The part that ended up well above ground level in the lower left
> was what I thought of as being like wind-blown snow or dust you see across
> roads or arctic ice or something.

I know what you mean, although it does not really look like that.  

> Since you mentioned stormy water I think I'll have to try that now.
> 
> Hmm, it's worse that I thought.  Well, it has it's good points I guess, see
> for yourselves.  The reason for the thinness was because of my balancing out
> large changes in brightness/darkness scattering does to it while trying to
> keep a place to see the landing craft.  Basically my typical struggle with
> media.
> 

It looks quite good, just replace the water with some RMF
isosurface/heightfield.  That would be more realistic for storm IMO.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

In one word.... MARS...
It looks to be more of a gaseous atmosphere than dusty...

"Bob H." wrote:

> I'm trying a different way of doing a dust storm on Mars by just using a
> single container with many density maps instead of a multitude of blob
> objects like I had done before.  It works okay, sort of.  What I ended up
> with so far is very much an illusion, and to show what I mean by that I made
> stereo pairs.  The one named with 3Dx is for cross-eyed viewing and the 3Dz
> is diverged.
> Also you can look at the larger image to see how it fairs as 2D only.  The
> lander craft is over-sized to make it more obvious.  Controlling the dust
> cloud has been hit and miss.
> Careful, don't strain your eyes too much.    X-)
>
> Bob H.
> --
> http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/
>
>  [Image]
>
>  [Image]
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

"Ryan Mooney" <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3AA6813D.3A6DAD81@earthlink.net...
> In one word.... MARS...
> It looks to be more of a gaseous atmosphere than dusty...

I know what you mean but I went a little by the photos from Pathfinder
lander where even clouds were shown.  Looked very airy to me.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message