 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmmm.. I think I need an eye-test. The first time the cells looked
> like depressions. Now, on rechecking, they look raised and OK. I guess
> the lighting confuses the eye.
Yeah I think thats one thing about the image I like. :)
Its a pity I can't seem to get rid of the banding effect.
I tried to re-render at a higher resolution and the banding was worse.
Tried with and without radiosity and photons with little or no difference to
the banding. Tried saving in other file formats as well but it seems to be
at the rendering stage.
I seem to have that problem with some of my images now. I was going through
my collection and found a lot. Does anyone know of a good way to reduce
this?
I hadn't noticed it before because I have in the past been looking at the
models and textures.
Aaron
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:40:32 +1300, Aaron wrote:
>> Hmmm.. I think I need an eye-test. The first time the cells looked
>> like depressions. Now, on rechecking, they look raised and OK. I guess
>> the lighting confuses the eye.
>
> Yeah I think thats one thing about the image I like. :)
>
> Its a pity I can't seem to get rid of the banding effect.
>
> I tried to re-render at a higher resolution and the banding was worse.
> Tried with and without radiosity and photons with little or no difference to
> the banding. Tried saving in other file formats as well but it seems to be
> at the rendering stage.
>
> I seem to have that problem with some of my images now. I was going through
> my collection and found a lot. Does anyone know of a good way to reduce
> this?
>
> I hadn't noticed it before because I have in the past been looking at the
> models and textures.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
Are you running your machine in 16-bit and taking screencaps? This may
cause it. You should either run in 24- or 32-bit or take the actual output
files from POV instead. The colouring takes a rapid plunge of 15 or so RGB
units when I took a look in Paint Shop Pro which means it's getting
16-bittized at some stage. (if 16-bittized is even a word :-) )
Sure hope this helps and BTW, when I first saw this image it looked like
some kind of squid or octopus in water. Good job.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I like what's going on there. I did something vaguely similar to one of your
shapes with an isosurfaces that had several morphing functions, one of which
was 3d noise. What was your approach?
best,
Dennis
fyi: I have four works at http://www.dennismiller.neu.edu/animation.html but
not the one I'm referring to. Second Thoughts uses morphing isos, however.
"Bill Naylor" <nay### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3EABCA70.1A582492@hotmail.com...
> A couple frames from an abstract animation...
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice concept... I like the colours too. I'd certainly be interested to
see what the animation looks like...
Andrew.
PS. What's with the speckly bits? Is that deliberate, or is it some kind of
render artifact?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What's with the size of this post?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3eabf70c@news.povray.org...
> What's with the size of this post?
for people with slow internet connection absolutely out of the question!!!
Robert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache said:
What's with the size of this post?
Bill replies:
Sorry it was so big. It was three images; I should have sent
them separately.
My apologies.
Dennis Miller said:
I like what's going on there. I did something vaguely similar to one of
your
shapes with an isosurfaces that had several morphing functions, one of
which
was 3d noise. What was your approach?
Bill replies:
Thank you very much.
We are inside a single hollow blob composed of 12 "while spirals" of
spheres. Each spiral is more or less planar on one axis, rotating on the
other axis, passing through other spirals and blobbing all the way.
Camera is stationary, looking at the terminus of the one spiral that
doesn't move, fighting desperately to exist in a swarm of strength-angst
entropy.
Andrew Coppin said:
Very nice concept... I like the colours too. I'd certainly be interested
to
see what the animation looks like...
Andrew.
PS. What's with the speckly bits? Is that deliberate, or is it some kind
of
render artifact?
Bill replies:
Thank you very much.
The colors took a long time. It looks totally different from outside
the blob.
The animation is a study, so it's just point a to point b. I hope to
have a website up soon, so I'll let you all know when you can see it.
My goal is a space ship sequence with some hyperspace travel and some
planetary touring, but I'm on a two-year digression trying to make
hyperspace interesting. This animation is part of that digression.
The speckles vex me. I speculate (ahem) that they occur in places where
blobbing makes the surfaces less than one pixel thick (he says,
expecting titters from those more mathematically blob-lucid). Any help
on that?
Thank you all for your kind words.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The speckles vex me. I speculate (ahem) that they occur in places where
> blobbing makes the surfaces less than one pixel thick (he says,
> expecting titters from those more mathematically blob-lucid). Any help
> on that?
It's a blob, eh?
Have you tried turning on the sturmian root solver? Either that or like you
say, it might be a coincident-surface type problem... (Unlikely though.)
HTH
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, I'll bite.
What's a sturmian root solver?
and, um, what's HTH in your signature?
hand to hand?
heart to heart?
have to hurl?
how's the hernia?
Andrew Coppin wrote:
> > The speckles vex me. I speculate (ahem) that they occur in places where
> > blobbing makes the surfaces less than one pixel thick (he says,
> > expecting titters from those more mathematically blob-lucid). Any help
> > on that?
>
> It's a blob, eh?
>
> Have you tried turning on the sturmian root solver? Either that or like you
> say, it might be a coincident-surface type problem... (Unlikely though.)
>
> HTH
> Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Okay, I'll bite.
Ouch!
> What's a sturmian root solver?
Put the "sturm" keyword in the blob object somewhere. It turned on the
"lower yet more accurate sturmian root solver". Whatever one of those is.
> and, um, what's HTH in your signature?
> hand to hand?
> heart to heart?
> have to hurl?
> how's the hernia?
"Hope That Helps"
Be good ;-)
Andrew
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
