 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:-o
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:07:16 +0100
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> Nice, but you should clean that coffee pot. ;-)
Never! Only when a percolator gets that used it begins to make good
coffe. Seriously!
> Concerning the lighting, i think when reflection is involved it is
> usually a good idea to use Jaime's technique for the radiosity
> calculation, i.e. take the radiosity data with dummy textures without
> reflection and reuse it. It might be necessary to do this
> precalculation at a higher resolution but it usually leads to fast and
> smooth results.
Hmmm... actually I always render the precalculation at half resolution
but with higher settings than I will use with the real scene. I usually
get ride of the artifacts raising the error_bound a bit on the final
render.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JRG wrote:
> A close up of the coffee percolator with steam and bluish fire.
That is very good, but my coffee pot, which is exactly the same, has steam
come out of the hole near the lid hinge as well as the spout.
--
Your connection failed because: /pub/lunch
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As with the last image, most of the scene looks stunning. What I would
change is the texture for the top part of the perculator. The bottom is
great, but the upper part looks too spotted IMO. More like a bozo
pattern than stains. You could try making a material_map so that you
have more control of where the stains are and how they are shaped.
/ martin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, I am on a roll and I couldn't resist :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'vaporeefuoco.jpg' (98 KB)
Preview of image 'vaporeefuoco.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Impressive work!
Now I know why I am not so good. Being decaffed makes you depoved as
well, it seems (at least the opposite seems to be true :) )
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How dare you render something so frikkin' realistic?! Aaarrgh. Why do you
keep raising the bar? I'll never catch up! :)
--
Anthony Bennett
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message news:3de5b622@news.povray.org...
: A close up of the coffee percolator with steam and bluish fire.
: Render time is not significant (>11 hours), since the last two-three lines took 3
: hours to render (still have to figure why) so I had to kill the render (this is a
: cropped image). [deletions] -- Jonathan.
Nice image. The flames look a little too uniform, but
they still look great. The steam looks like it's following
its container too closely. Love the lighting...
=Bob=
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sorry, I am on a roll and I couldn't resist :)
Hmmm.... coffee in the Matrix... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> > Nice, but you should clean that coffee pot. ;-)
>
> Never! Only when a percolator gets that used it begins to make good
> coffe. Seriously!
All right, i don't drink coffee...
> > Concerning the lighting, i think when reflection is involved it is
> > usually a good idea to use Jaime's technique for the radiosity
> > calculation, i.e. take the radiosity data with dummy textures without
> > reflection and reuse it. It might be necessary to do this
> > precalculation at a higher resolution but it usually leads to fast and
> > smooth results.
>
> Hmmm... actually I always render the precalculation at half resolution
> but with higher settings than I will use with the real scene. I usually
> get ride of the artifacts raising the error_bound a bit on the final
> render.
The most important effect about raising the error_bound in comparison to
the precalculation is to avoid taking additional samples despite
'always_sample off'. Otherwise a higher error_bound of course reduces
artefacts but also the details in the shadows.
The real criteria for the size of the precalculation render should be to
gather enough radiosity data to generate the wanted quality picture. With
a low error_bound you will not be able to take enough samples since you
can't take more than one sample per pixel of course. In other words you
will have to strongly increase error_bound for the final trace to avoid
too many samples to be taken during final trace and thereby generate a
picture with less accurate radiosity effects.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 15 Nov. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
