 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro timnikias (@) #local = "gmx.net" #end> wrote
in message news:4087ab82@news.povray.org...
> Final version is now available on my website. I've put a link to a
1280x960
> PNG version as well (411kb), as the JPEG does show some
colorbanding. If
> you're interested, have a look:
>
> <http://www.nolights.de/v2gallery/images/memory.html>
I'm liking this a lot Tim, excellent work!
~Steve~
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
> "Tim Nikias v2.0"
> Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm liking this a lot Tim, excellent work!
Thanks for the praise, Steve! :-)
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Is this better? I know, the face still has a few more particles than the
> remaining scene (well, just like about 4000 or so..), but some emphasis
> should still be put on her face and expression, rather than her entire body.
> Your comment was very helpful, I've got to admit that! I've always been
> watching her face and how it makes the smile visible, but sure, the
> remaining body should be almost as visible.
>
>
any chance of a code snippet for the 'blob' in the middle ?
i know of a paperweight i'd like to try modelling
glass sphere with about 30 of those inside, flattened bottom
stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> any chance of a code snippet for the 'blob' in the middle ?
> i know of a paperweight i'd like to try modelling
> glass sphere with about 30 of those inside, flattened bottom
Hm, you're talking of the raindrops I assume. The image posted here actually
just makes use of two half-spheres, differently scaled, no blob. One for the
upper part, one for the lower, flattened bottom. Both parts have to overlap
slightly and get merged so that no inside surface shows up.
Still, a problem is the sudden change of the surface from one half to the
next, which resulted in that refractive jump which is clearly visible on the
foremost and largest raindrop. Hence I created a new, blobbed version in a
more "standard imagination (wrong) type" of raindrop (raindrops don't
actually look tear-shaped). You can see that version on my homepage.
What I did there was just place several spherical components in a blob, but
scale them smaller as I raise their center. Doing so with enough detail got
rid of the "humps" that easily occur when putting spherical blobs in a row,
but there is some tweaking required to get the shape properly done.
If you want the actual code, say so, but I think the above should clarify
the process enough for you to have a try at it. :-)
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>>any chance of a code snippet for the 'blob' in the middle ?
>>i know of a paperweight i'd like to try modelling
>>glass sphere with about 30 of those inside, flattened bottom
>
>
> Hm, you're talking of the raindrops I assume. The image posted here actually
> just makes use of two half-spheres, differently scaled, no blob. One for the
> upper part, one for the lower, flattened bottom. Both parts have to overlap
> slightly and get merged so that no inside surface shows up.
>
> Still, a problem is the sudden change of the surface from one half to the
> next, which resulted in that refractive jump which is clearly visible on the
> foremost and largest raindrop. Hence I created a new, blobbed version in a
> more "standard imagination (wrong) type" of raindrop (raindrops don't
> actually look tear-shaped). You can see that version on my homepage.
>
> What I did there was just place several spherical components in a blob, but
> scale them smaller as I raise their center. Doing so with enough detail got
> rid of the "humps" that easily occur when putting spherical blobs in a row,
> but there is some tweaking required to get the shape properly done.
>
> If you want the actual code, say so, but I think the above should clarify
> the process enough for you to have a try at it. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
thanks for the explanation, will try it
curious - how many spheres roughly?
stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SNIP
> thanks for the explanation, will try it
>
> curious - how many spheres roughly?
Well, the blobbed version on my homepage uses 20 per raindrop. The former
merged CSG just used two, of course. ;-)
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4087c886@news.povray.org>,
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <#macro timnikias (@) #local = "gmx.net" #end>
wrote:
> Is this better? I know, the face still has a few more particles than the
> remaining scene (well, just like about 4000 or so..), but some emphasis
> should still be put on her face and expression, rather than her entire body.
> Your comment was very helpful, I've got to admit that! I've always been
> watching her face and how it makes the smile visible, but sure, the
> remaining body should be almost as visible.
I prefer the original. It had a sense of an invisible person being
revealed by a gentle rain...this is more like someone getting sprayed in
the face with a hose. The original just hinted at what was there, this
one buries it in noise.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlink net>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I prefer the original. It had a sense of an invisible person being
> revealed by a gentle rain...this is more like someone getting sprayed in
> the face with a hose. The original just hinted at what was there, this
> one buries it in noise.
It's difficult to get the amount right when coming to terms with
randomness... Though I can understand your viewpoint, I think this one
describes better how definitive the effect of the missing person is on the
environment. It's like she's solid and present, even though she's not.
Additionally, to make her face visible, I have to trace quiet a few
particles onto it, or it would just pop up as some distorted face-like
thingy. In some earlier attempts that looked more scary and aggressive,
which is completely the other side of what I wanted.
Regards,
Tim
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why not instead of having the raindrops falling on the face, have the rain
being driven into the face by a stiff wind.
> , and another 3500 drops placed onto her face to
> make it visible. That's the part where I need to experiment a little more,
> as her smile isn't really obvious enough for my taste. It's exagherated on
> the model, but still doesn't come through on the final pic. Any ideas on
> that? I guess I'll raise the particle-count on the face and place the
light
> (or add some more) so that the specular highlights show it better...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why not instead of having the raindrops falling on the face, have the rain
> being driven into the face by a stiff wind.
The end-result wouldn't be different by the looks, as the woman would still
need to be visible due to raindrops. But if I'd used a stiff wind, those
raindrops sure would have hurt more, and then she'd never be smiling. And
that would spoil the effect I wanted. This way, its a smooth rainfall
(though with lots of water coming down) and she enjoys the rain. Enjoying
stormy weather isn't that convincing. :-)
--
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
