Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Nico wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Since I'm always searching povray newsgroup to look for specific 
>> methods of doing things, I decided to try to gather them all in a 
>> single picture both to have a quick idea on what it looks like and 
>> also to have a quick access on source. The image currently shows (in 
>> order):
>>
>>  - Blurred reflection (from Povray Questions and Tips)
>>  - Spheric mapping of object (I did this one)
>>  - Ice (or water ?) from a recent post by IkA
>>  - Furtex by Rune S. Johansen
>>
>> Of course, this image is still a WIP and it misses a bunch of other 
>> great methods/tips that have been posted like subsurface scattering, 
>> fire, water, furballs, media clouds, etc.
>>
>> At this point, I would need your help to complete the image by adding 
>> some more balls showing special effects/textures/methods...
>>
>> Anyone interested ?
>> Comments ? Ideas ?
> 
> 
> Looks like a good start.  Maybe you should add something like:
> 
> http://www.tu-bs.de/%7Ey0013390/pov/planets.html
> 

Yes, earth with moon in orbit would be great but having read the webpage 
describing the method, I'm not sure I know how to do that (or did I miss 
the link ?). Could you post an example ?



Nico

Post a reply to this message

Care to send me that C-Programm via email?

Aside of the rendering times, I'd say go for one sphere. After all, it looks
like your image is rather designated to single spheres in little boxes...

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de


>
> Thanks, I updated the code and will repost into p.b.s-f with the new
> candle code. I made the golf ball and tried to use your ESR macro to
> generate 492 evenly ditributed points but it's taking quite a very long
> time so I had to use an external C program I found. The problem is now
> that a sphere with 492 differenced objects seems to be very long to
> render (I think it is explained on "Mike's Little Web Page"), and it's
> even worse than that because I planned to use 13 of them... (see
> attached image).
>
> Nico
>
> Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> > I've looked into your code to properly test the candle in the actual
> > environment, and this is what I've found: you forgotten to move the
plank by
> > z*plank_thickness in the end. The thickness points towards the camera
and
> > thus extends from z=2.5 towards z=2.1, so I've just added
plank_thickness in
> > the last translation. Below is the code, you can easily spot the
difference
> > from your to my version:
> >
> >
> > // Rear plank
> > object {
> >   IW_Plank_RoundW  (
> >     17,
> >     (box_nx*box_x+(box_nx+1)*plank_thickness), plank_thickness,
> > box_ny*box_y+(box_ny+1)*plank_thickness,
> >     2, 0, 0.05, 0.0035,
> >     pigment { P_IW_10 color_map {CM_IW} scale 5} , Fin_W_02 , No_Normal,
2
> >   )
> >   rotate x*-90
> >   translate -x*(box_nx*box_x+(box_nx+1)*plank_thickness)/2
> >   translate z*(box_z+plank_thickness) //  <= Updated here
> > }
> >
> > Attached is the small snippet showing the candle from a 500x500 render
with
> > only the candle traced. Required about 5 minutes on my 2.4Ghz XP+ and
> > shouldn't affect the rendering times of the others boxes as the
lightsource
> > of the candle is pretty much contained in the box.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09.10.2003

Post a reply to this message

Another thing: the updated version you submitted has the red spheres
switched on, everything else commented out, and the red spheres are in the
top-left corner.

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de


> Care to send me that C-Programm via email?
>
> Aside of the rendering times, I'd say go for one sphere. After all, it
looks
> like your image is rather designated to single spheres in little boxes...
>
> -- 
> Tim Nikias v2.0
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
> Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de
>
>



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09.10.2003

Post a reply to this message

And yet another thing: This is how I'd do the water-sphere:

sphere {0,1
  ball_at (2,3)
   texture {
    pigment {rgbt  <1.0,1.0,1.0,0.98>}
    finish{
      diffuse 0
      ambient 0
      specular 1
      roughness 0.0001
    reflection {0,1 fresnel}
    conserve_energy
    }
       normal { agate 0.3 scale 1.3 }
  }
    interior {ior 1.33}
}

No need for the "glass.inc" at all, proper Ior for the water, as well as
reflection. Specular and Phong are two models for the same thing:
Highlights, so I'd go with just one of them. Since the rgb-color is <1,1,1>
I'd go for high transmit instead of filter.

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09.10.2003

Post a reply to this message

I tend to forget things...

How about photons? You'd have to render it in two passes probably, so that
the blurred reflection won't take too long for the photons. I'd say:

#declare Photon_Pass=true;

#if (Photon_Pass)
 photons{... save_file}
#else
 photons{...load_file}
#end

And some switched inside the blurred reflection and possibly other objects
to create the correct lighting.

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09.10.2003

Post a reply to this message

I fixed the waterball, the main file and keep the several golf balls 
just to see what it looks like. Result by Tuesday maybe (will be busy 
until then).

I was thinking about photons but didn't dare to try (rendering time).

I think we have also to find a way to collaborate on the rendering. 
Since each ball (or future small scene) is contained within a box the 
image can certainly be rendered by several different people, hoping 
there won't be much (light) interaction between subparts.
What do you think ?


Nico



Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> I tend to forget things...
> 
> How about photons? You'd have to render it in two passes probably, so that
> the blurred reflection won't take too long for the photons. I'd say:
> 
> #declare Photon_Pass=true;
> 
> #if (Photon_Pass)
>  photons{... save_file}
> #else
>  photons{...load_file}
> #end
> 
> And some switched inside the blurred reflection and possibly other objects
> to create the correct lighting.
>

Post a reply to this message

You're using radiosity. Unless someone prerenders the scene and saves the
radiosity data, which the others can load, there is light interaction
between subparts. For a final render I'd suggest the two-pass radiosity
method the newsgroups cooked up at some point anyway, so divided rendering
should be possible then. You can find more information on that two-pass
method on my website, within my Past-Projects-Section, entitled "Indoor
Radiosity Experiments". I've made use of that technique for my Gerberas
Image as well, so you'll find information on that in there as well.

I've also noticed that your radiosity settings are somewhat queer, e.g.
nearest_count set to 1. Why is that? I raised nearest_count to 8, cause
otherwise it gave me ugly artifact with photons. Once the image is ready,
I'll post it.

Care to post the Golf-Ball? Maybe I could have do some experiments with it.

Regards,
Tim

PS: You might have noticed that I'm pretty enthused with this image... :-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de


>
> I fixed the waterball, the main file and keep the several golf balls
> just to see what it looks like. Result by Tuesday maybe (will be busy
> until then).
>
> I was thinking about photons but didn't dare to try (rendering time).
>
> I think we have also to find a way to collaborate on the rendering.
> Since each ball (or future small scene) is contained within a box the
> image can certainly be rendered by several different people, hoping
> there won't be much (light) interaction between subparts.
> What do you think ?
>
>
> Nico
>
>
>
> Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> > I tend to forget things...
> >
> > How about photons? You'd have to render it in two passes probably, so
that
> > the blurred reflection won't take too long for the photons. I'd say:
> >
> > #declare Photon_Pass=true;
> >
> > #if (Photon_Pass)
> >  photons{... save_file}
> > #else
> >  photons{...load_file}
> > #end
> >
> > And some switched inside the blurred reflection and possibly other
objects
> > to create the correct lighting.
> >
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09.10.2003

Post a reply to this message

The golf ball is posted in the new corrected version 2.
You're absolutely right about the two pass rendering, especially when 
there is transparency and reflection (they can be shut down during the 
first pass, right ?).
Concerning divided rendering, I don't see what could be interaction 
between boxes since objects are fully within a box. If I tell povray to 
render only top-left box (by specifying what image part to render), will 
that be wrong in term of radiosity interaction ?

Concerning radiosity settings, they're more or less "random" since I do 
not really understand them and get them from some file I have, so I'm 
open to any sugestions (and already raised the nearest_count).


 > PS: You might have noticed that I'm pretty enthused with this 
image... :-)

I sort of noticed :)
Thanks for all your help and advices.


Nico

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> You're using radiosity. Unless someone prerenders the scene and saves the
> radiosity data, which the others can load, there is light interaction
> between subparts. For a final render I'd suggest the two-pass radiosity
> method the newsgroups cooked up at some point anyway, so divided rendering
> should be possible then. You can find more information on that two-pass
> method on my website, within my Past-Projects-Section, entitled "Indoor
> Radiosity Experiments". I've made use of that technique for my Gerberas
> Image as well, so you'll find information on that in there as well.
> 
> I've also noticed that your radiosity settings are somewhat queer, e.g.
> nearest_count set to 1. Why is that? I raised nearest_count to 8, cause
> otherwise it gave me ugly artifact with photons. Once the image is ready,
> I'll post it.
> 
> Care to post the Golf-Ball? Maybe I could have do some experiments with it.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
>

Post a reply to this message

Nico wrote:
> 
> Yes, earth with moon in orbit would be great but having read the webpage 
> describing the method, I'm not sure I know how to do that (or did I miss 
> the link ?). Could you post an example ?

You don't really need the techniques described on my site since a fairly 
low resoluton should be sufficient.  Just an isosurface with image 
mapped texture.  I will see if i can put together a simple version.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 2 Sep. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

in news:3f8d6461@news.povray.org Nico wrote:

> ... some more balls ...

here's blobbed isosurface one that's been sitting on my disk for almost a 
year now and I have no idea what to do with it. So if you can use it, ill 
post the code.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cage.jpg' (21 KB)

Preview of image 'cage.jpg'