Warp wrote:
> 
>   Just playing and testing... And got this. It's very simple, but somehow
> I like it. It has the beauty of raytracing.
>   Uses just 3.1 code, no fancy features.
> 

Really nice, but maybe it would look even better with some blurred &
variable reflection, photons, ... :-)

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

Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
: Somehow soothes me, so I have is as my KDE background. One needs
: soothing while coding ;)

  I can render it with the resolution of your screen, if you want... :)

-- 
#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

Flux <kid### [at] usfamilynet> wrote:
: My god, that's crisp!  I always thought that when focal blur is used, it takes
: over for AA.  But if that's the case, shouldn't we be seeing just a bit of bad
: / non AA-ing, at least somewhere?  This image holds none.  Its just the most
: crisp image I think I've ever seen.  Beautiful...

  I would also believe that the lack of antialiasing would cause aliasing
artifacts in the sharpest zone. However, it doesn't seem to be so. It may
be that even the smallest difference in sample ray directions is enough
to produce a smooth result.
  Of course proper focal blur settings are needed to get a smooth result.
These settings don't even make it slow: Rendering this image at 640x480
took less than 3 minutes in my 1.2GHz Athlon.
  (I don't remember the settings I used, and I don't have the scene file
here at work, as it is in my home computer...)

  By the way, the 640x480 version can be found at my images page:
http://iki.fi/warp/pics/

-- 
#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

Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
: 1) the two spots on the black background(the brown and the white one): Are
: they only 2 simple spheres with emitting media, or is there a better Idea
: behind them ?
: Or are they two 'normal' spheres very near the camera, so they got blurred
: dramatically(But this would be very slow)?

  I used a nice trick to get the light sources to "glow". The idea is not
mine, but unfortunately I can't credit the original author of the idea. I
just read about it somewhere (I really don't remember where). The idea is
simple but very ingenious.

  The camera is not looking at the scene, but in the exact opposite direction.
There's a plane in front of the camera with 100% mirror finish. The plane
has also specular highlighting (with a very small roughness). This simple
trick makes the light sources to "glow".
  Of course it has some side-effects: If you look closely at what the spheres
are reflecting, you'll see that they are reflecting themselves through this
mirror.

: 2) the shadows below the brown and the blueish sphere are looking odd to
: me...
: I don't know how many lights you have used(I counted 2, but I think there are
: at least 3), but it looks a bit dark to me... to dark... maybe there should
: be some fill-light  to show, there is no hole below these spheres ...

  There are just two light sources, those which are glowing.
  The shadows might look a bit odd because the light sources are so close
to the spheres.

: but as a hole: nice pic ... can we expect a higher resolution ???

  There's a 640x480 version at http://iki.fi/warp/pics/

  I can also render a bigger one (eg. 1024x768) if you want.

-- 
#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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b8100eb@news.povray.org...
> Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> : 1) the two spots on the black background(the brown and the white one):
Are
> : they only 2 simple spheres with emitting media, or is there a better Idea
> : behind them ?
> : Or are they two 'normal' spheres very near the camera, so they got
blurred
> : dramatically(But this would be very slow)?
>   I used a nice trick to get the light sources to "glow". The idea is not
[snip]
>   The camera is not looking at the scene, but in the exact opposite
direction.
> There's a plane in front of the camera with 100% mirror finish. The plane
Oh yes ... I expirienced this effect myself some time ago when I placed some
candles next the window.
It was a nice effect, especially when you calculated the focal blur for the
reflected objects, but still have the original objects visible in the
viewport (and you use some HQ fb-params)

>   Of course it has some side-effects: If you look closely at what the
spheres
> are reflecting, you'll see that they are reflecting themselves through this
> mirror.
I asked myself what they are reflecting there, but I decided it must be some
artifacts ..

>
> : 2) the shadows below the brown and the blueish sphere are looking odd to
> : me...
> : I don't know how many lights you have used(I counted 2, but I think there
are
> : at least 3), but it looks a bit dark to me... to dark... maybe there
should
> : be some fill-light  to show, there is no hole below these spheres ...
>
>   There are just two light sources, those which are glowing.
>   The shadows might look a bit odd because the light sources are so close
> to the spheres.
But now, knowing of the mirror, the shadows in their relation to the
lightsources are making sense

>
> : but as a hole: nice pic ... can we expect a higher resolution ???
>
>   There's a 640x480 version at http://iki.fi/warp/pics/
>
>   I can also render a bigger one (eg. 1024x768) if you want.
1152x864 ?

But if you open the sources I would render it myself in 2400x1800 and
V(ery)HQ fb-params ;)

--
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet>

Post a reply to this message

On 20 Aug 2001 08:06:08 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
>: Somehow soothes me, so I have is as my KDE background. One needs
>: soothing while coding ;)
>
>  I can render it with the resolution of your screen, if you want... :)

That'll be great, thanks. The res is 1024x768.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Aug 2001 09:49:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>  Just playing and testing... And got this. It's very simple, but somehow
>I like it. It has the beauty of raytracing.
>  Uses just 3.1 code, no fancy features.

I think it hits the spot. 

--
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  2:40pm  up 37 days, 16:44,  2 users,  load average: 1.04, 1.04, 1.00

Post a reply to this message

Took 7 minutes to render. (Who says focal blur is slow?-) )

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'GlowTest.jpg' (74 KB)

Preview of image 'GlowTest.jpg'

>   Took 7 minutes to render. (Who says focal blur is slow?-) )
>
   - Warp -

Thanks ... now I can see it ...
--
Y

Post a reply to this message

Hehe, very nice.

-- 
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message