 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Lightflow-inspired render WIP (~68kau)
Date: 11 May 2001 04:08:37
Message: <3AFB9E41.1D91EAE2@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Warp got me thinking about a Lightflow render (chess_s.jpg, included here
> for comparison purposes) I saw some time ago. I still have a lot of work
> left to do. I was just trying to get the camera and lighting close to the
> original really. Modelling needs a lot of work, and of course camera and
> lighting need some work still too. This took 9 hours and 36 minutes and 0
> seconds. :\ Enjoy and comment, please. Suggestions for improving similarity
> and quality much appreciated. :)
>
Nice, but the objects seem to be too much glowing to me, not quite
realistic under physical aspects. The rest looks really goo, i find the
strong focal blur in the lightflow version rather distracting.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: InTercepto
Subject: Re: Lightflow-inspired render WIP (~68kau)
Date: 11 May 2001 04:39:52
Message: <3afba558@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> lighting need some work still too. This took 9 hours and 36 minutes and 0
Looks very close to picture from LF.
You can achieve similiar results with both renderers, but i think that
Lifghtflow is faster than povray, and it has great radiosity.
There is one new renderer on the net, VirtualLight
http://www.3dvirtualight.com/ . He is also global illumination renderer, but
i think Lightflow is better one.
--
Toni Bratincevic
E-Mail: tbr### [at] barokfoihr
Web: http://members.nbci.com/intercepto
ICQ: 5489738
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
InTercepto <tbr### [at] foihr> wrote:
: i think that Lifghtflow is faster than povray
Wrong.
Yes, it is faster with some things. With other things it's quite a lot
slower (like a magnitude of 5:1 or so).
It's very misleading to take a lightflow image and then try to make an
almost exact copy of the image made with povray and compare the rendering
times.
If you try to simulate the lighting model of one renderer with another,
you usually have to make compromises which make the latter slower.
I bet that if we make the test the other way around, that is, take a
povray (or megapov) image which is very fast to render (and has something
special) and try to achieve the exact same image with lightflow, it will
be quite slow.
: and it has great radiosity.
I haven't yet seen a radiosity lightflow image which is considerably
better than megapov radiosity.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Andy Cocker
Subject: Re: Lightflow-inspired render WIP (~68kau)
Date: 11 May 2001 13:24:16
Message: <3afc2040@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3AFB9E41.1D91EAE2@gmx.de...
<snip>
> The rest looks really goo, i find the
> strong focal blur in the lightflow version rather distracting.
Just jumping in here to say that I don't recall ever having seen somebody
say they *like* strong focal blur used in an image posted here. I DO like
it.. very much.
There, I'll go away now.
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In order to get realistic glass objects I suggest you to make a completely
transparent pigment (i.e. rgbf 1 or rgbf .98...)
and to add absorption media to get the colour of the glass (i.e. absorption
3*(1-your_colour)). With a bit of turbulence (in a density statement) I
always got excellent results and the glass objects should lose that
physically unrealistic glowing effect.
JRG.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In order to get realistic glass objects I suggest you to make a completely
> transparent pigment (i.e. rgbf 1 or rgbf .98...)
> and to add absorption media to get the colour of the glass (i.e.
absorption
> 3*(1-your_colour)). With a bit of turbulence (in a density statement) I
> always got excellent results and the glass objects should lose that
> physically unrealistic glowing effect.
I'll try that. I'm getting a lot of glowing. I just hope rendering isn't
too much slower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a quick blurb to let everyone know this one is almost done. At least
the modelling, texturing and camera are OK. The lights I'm still tweaking.
It's also rendering right now... with focal blur. This is going to take a
while... a long while. Please be patient. This is a 160x120. After 12 hours
and 9 minutes, we're at line 36. Be very patient. :|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just a quick blurb to let everyone know this one is almost done. At least
> the modelling, texturing and camera are OK. The lights I'm still tweaking.
> It's also rendering right now... with focal blur. This is going to take a
> while... a long while. Please be patient. This is a 160x120. After 12 hours
> and 9 minutes, we're at line 36. Be very patient. :|
Send me the source and an appropriate .ini file, and I'll have a go at
rendering it for you.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, but I'll finish this test render here first. I'll send you the
final, if you want. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 May 2001 19:37:16 -0600, Tony[B] wrote...
> Thanks, but I'll finish this test render here first. I'll send you the
> final, if you want. :)
Fair enough.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
