"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3acc6583$1@news.povray.org...

Which is the iso - the water, the landscape, or both (I'm assuming the
water)?

Post a reply to this message

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3acc871f@news.povray.org...
>
> Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
> wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than
sufficient
> for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

Huh?  :-)  Oh!  You think the water is an isosurface!  Ha ha.  Well no, it
is not.

> Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
> water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd
want
> rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
> these features in this instance.

The blurring is taking place of mere normals or displacement (isosurface?).
Figured I'd give it a try for effect.  I have to change the amounts the
three water textures have I can tell because it doesn't have smooth and
rough areas like it had before.

Thanks, glad you liked it anyway.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

I knew I should have said the water is only a textured plane.

Bob H.

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3acc8d0d@news.povray.org...
>
> Which is the iso - the water, the landscape, or both (I'm assuming the
> water)?

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3ACC6DB6.AA3DA529@gmx.de...
>
> That's fairly normal for isosurface & reflection, reflection blur even
> more.  Usually in such a scene i would expect the horizon part to be quite
> slow too.

Indeed it was.  Only the sky and midway down the lake was it what I'd call
"fast".

> Before the last 20 lines there is not much of the isosurface to be
> reflected so things are probably quite fast.  I would estimate that the
> mountain reflections in the lake are the part which is slowest.

Correct.

> Just add some radiosity and you will find everything before extremely fast
>
> Nice scene BTW, the clouds look quite good, just the rim of the lake seems
> a bit steep.

Believe me, I thought about using radiosity before I realized how slow it
gets at the last lines.
And thanks, making a shoreline is one of the intended additions, if I can
get it right.  I think it hasn't any scale much until I do.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote:

> "Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3acc871f@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
>> wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than
> sufficient
>> for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

> Huh?  :-)  Oh!  You think the water is an isosurface!  Ha ha.  Well no, it
> is not.

Ah!  I assumed that they were on the same object.  Oops.

>> Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
>> water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd
> want
>> rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
>> these features in this instance.

> The blurring is taking place of mere normals or displacement (isosurface?).
> Figured I'd give it a try for effect.  I have to change the amounts the
> three water textures have I can tell because it doesn't have smooth and
> rough areas like it had before.

Ah, ok, experimenting.  Hmm.  Not sure what to suggest.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3acc6661@news.povray.org>, Bob H. says...
> ... so here it is this time, for what it's worth.
> 
This is tantalizingly small, but I understand that you would be in 
trouble if you rendered a larger one :)
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

Hmm, seems counter-intuitive to me that a reflection of an iso should take
any longer to render than the iso itself. Anyone got an explanation?

"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3acca47d@news.povray.org...
> I knew I should have said the water is only a textured plane.
>
> Bob H.
>

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:

> Hmm, seems counter-intuitive to me that a reflection of an iso should take
> any longer to render than the iso itself. Anyone got an explanation?

The reflection is blurred.  Blurred reflections of anything take longer than
rendering the object itself.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

If reflection blur is causing the trouble, you may be able to get away
with something different.  If the bump_map on the water has features
that are smaller than one pixel, anti-aliasing would do much the same
thing as the blurred reflections.

Both methods would average over a variety of "stochastically sampled"
reflected rays, but the "anti-aliasing method" would only be turned on
when it made a difference in the final image.  Hopefully, this would
really improve the render time.

-Ben
<><

Post a reply to this message

"Ben Birdsey" <cla### [at] mailcom> wrote in message
news:3ACDC7EE.473B029E@mail.com...
>
> If reflection blur is causing the trouble, you may be able to get away
> with something different.  If the bump_map on the water has features
> that are smaller than one pixel, anti-aliasing would do much the same
> thing as the blurred reflections.

Hmmm, yeah, think I'll try changing the scaling of the normals anyway and
see if that improves things first before I give up on the reflection_blur
altogether.  It occurs to me that what the blurring does is actually reverse
of what it would be IRL I believe.  Distant horizon reflections should be
blurred more than those nearer below the camera due to the waves seen closer
together at an oblique angle far away.
Reflection blurring blends out the reflected objects the farther they get
into the reflecting surface.
That sound right anyone?

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message