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. :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'inspired.jpg' (34 KB) Download 'chess_s.jpg' (15 KB)

Preview of image 'inspired.jpg'

Preview of image 'chess_s.jpg'

Suggestions for improving similarity
> and quality much appreciated. :)

Similarity? you're probably still goin to add the crowns. Position the camera
closer. use a wide angle view camera and add focal blurr. To really get it the
same you'd have to take away the photons :(
But I prefer the photons.

Nekar X

--
#local N=<-4,8,20>;#local K=<4,-8,20>;#local R=seed(0);union{#while((K-N).x>0)
#local X=N;#local N=N+<rand(R),rand(R),1>/30;#local N=(vlength(N-K)<vlength(X-K
)?N:2*X-N);sphere{<N.y,-N.x,N.z>,.2}sphere{N,.2}sphere{<-N.x-8,N.y,N.z>,.1//-NX
pigment{rgb N}}sphere{<N.x+8,-N.y,N.z>,.1 pigment{rgb N}}#end pigment{rgb 9}}

Post a reply to this message

It seems you need to get closer. The colours don't quite match, but I
like yours better - the photons look great!

sig
-- 
ICQ 74734588

Post a reply to this message

"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] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

> 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

"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