 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon A. Cruz" <jon### [at] geocities com> wrote in message
news:3BD262DD.21F67C38@geocities.com...
> Batronyx wrote:
>
> > I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was
done?
> > Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
> > nothing to do with light groups.
>
> Ummm...
> Green sphere floating well over the plane, and an extra light and sphere
casting a
> shadow for it.
>
No. There are only three spheres. Besides I think the extra sphere would cast a
shadow on the green one would it not?
^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Assuming you're using 3.5, the most likely probability is light_group.
--
//Mahalis
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare T=texture{pigment{crackle
scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0 rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1
rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}} finish{ambient 1}} #declare
c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1 rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}
merge{object{c translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
--
"Batronyx" <bat### [at] alliancecablenet> wrote in message
news:3bd26053@news.povray.org...
> I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was
done?
> Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it
has
> nothing to do with light groups.
>
>
> --
> Batronyx ^"^
> bat### [at] cadronhsacom //old & going away
> bat### [at] alliancecablenet //new & active now.
> http://www.batronyx.com
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Batronyx who wrote:
>I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was done?
>Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
>nothing to do with light groups.
It's pretty obvious that it's not done with light_groups because then
the green sphere would have been lit from the opposite side from its
shadow.
I reckon the green sphere is no_shadow, and there's a no_image sphere in
the scene casting the extra shadow from the other end.
(The object casting the extra shadow doesn't appear to be off screen
because then the width of the penumbra would have been wider because the
extra object would be closer to the area_light.)
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Batronyx schrieb:
> I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was done?
> Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
> nothing to do with light groups.
Hmmm... As a not-quite-so-advanced pover, I would assume that you used no_shadow
for the green sphere and then overlaid a single properly sized semi-transparent
dark leopard spot with fuzzy edges, rotated around the y and x (or z ) axis, on the
plane texture!
See you in Khyberspace - http://www.geocities.com/electricafghan/index-e.html
Afghanistan Chronicle: http://www.ndh.net/home/bleimann/
Yadgar
Now playing: Orange Valley (Claude Larson)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mahalis" <don### [at] fakeycom> wrote in message
news:3bd2a69c$1@news.povray.org...
> Assuming you're using 3.5, the most likely probability is light_group.
>
Except that I've already pointed out it has nothing to do with light groups. :)
^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Williams" <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in message
news:4J+VfC### [at] econymdemoncouk...
> Wasn't it Batronyx who wrote:
>
> >I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was
done?
> >Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
> >nothing to do with light groups.
>
> It's pretty obvious that it's not done with light_groups because then
> the green sphere would have been lit from the opposite side from its
> shadow.
>
> I reckon the green sphere is no_shadow, and there's a no_image sphere in
> the scene casting the extra shadow from the other end.
>
> (The object casting the extra shadow doesn't appear to be off screen
> because then the width of the penumbra would have been wider because the
> extra object would be closer to the area_light.)
>
You are partially correct; there is a 'no_shadow' on the green sphere. However,
there are _only_ three spheres ( except the one for the sky but it wasn't
entirely necessary).
^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Yadgar" <yad### [at] koh-e-qaisar-observatoryaf> wrote in message
news:3BD2E835.46DF8D90@koh-e-qaisar-observatory.af...
> Batronyx schrieb:
>
> > I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was
done?
> > Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
> > nothing to do with light groups.
>
> Hmmm... As a not-quite-so-advanced pover, I would assume that you used
no_shadow
> for the green sphere and then overlaid a single properly sized
semi-transparent
> dark leopard spot with fuzzy edges, rotated around the y and x (or z ) axis,
on the
> plane texture!
So far you are the most correct; no_shadow on the sphere, and the backwards
shadow is indeed a texture layered on the plane. However, it isn't leopard, it
is an object pattern texture (from the sphere in fact), blurred according to Ron
Parker's post earlier, "The final word on blurred reflections" which works just
a well on pigments.
news://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images:54969
I thought this might be a good way for someone to fake soft shadows in Rune's
fast grass macro. It would take more work than I've put in here, but it does
offer possibilities.
^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:39:27 -0500, "Batronyx"
<bat### [at] alliancecablenet> wrote:
>I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was done?
>Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it has
>nothing to do with light groups.
no_shadow on the green sphere and a strong negative-colored spotlight?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Batronyx" <bat### [at] alliancecablenet> wrote in message
news:3bd26053@news.povray.org...
> I was experimenting and came up with this. Anyone care to guess how it was
done?
> Since there are a number of ways it _could_ have been done I will say it
has
> nothing to do with light groups.
Holes in the plane and shadowless light ?
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually Yadgar mostly got it earlier.
There is a no_shadow on the sphere, and the backwards
shadow is indeed a texture layered on the plane. It is an object pattern
texture(from the sphere in fact), blurred according to Ron Parker's post
earlier, "The final word on blurred reflections" which works just as well on
pigments.
news://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images:54969
I thought this might be a good way for someone to fake soft shadows in Rune's
fast grass macro. It would take more work than I've put in here, but it offers
possibilities.
^"^
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
