 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi everybody!
Here's an attempt at greebling with a modified crackle pattern. It's
meant to be viewed cross-eyed to bring out the depth. I could have used
higher focal-blur settings if I had the time :cD
The scene consists of a single height field, which was declared and
copied several times. One 2x2 area_light was used. The faked indirect
illumination is a proximity pattern based on the final object.
Total rendering time: about 20 minutes. Rendered completely in POV-Ray
3.6 (except for my signature, which was added with the Gimp).
Questions, comments and CC are appreciated as always!
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'alien_architecture.jpg' (99 KB)
Preview of image 'alien_architecture.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
P.S. It appears the jpeg compression really ate this one up. Oh well,
gotta go take care of some errands....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge wrote:
I knew that this would be easy in POV (guessing you spotted the recent
greeble thread in p.b.i). Not saying that to take away anything from
your as usual nice-looking render. Would be interested to see this with
another, smaller texture representing tiny details. This looks like
large details to me.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice - especially in 3D.
-Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
H. R. Giger himself would be impressed!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> I knew that this would be easy in POV (guessing you spotted the recent
> greeble thread in p.b.i).
Don't you mean p.o-t?
> Not saying that to take away anything from
> your as usual nice-looking render.
Can't take away what it never had :) Seriously though, this was rather
hastily posted. I hope to render something more interesting later...
> Would be interested to see this with
> another, smaller texture representing tiny details. This looks like
> large details to me.
>
> -Shay
That's the next step (one of the next steps, anyway). The problem is
balancing large-scale details with the miniscule. I've got a few ideas
rattling around upstairs for doing that...
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
> Very nice - especially in 3D.
>
> -Chris
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Blandston wrote:
> H. R. Giger himself would be impressed!
Thanks! Now I need to steer the style towards something more 'original' :)
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When do we get a real 3d screen ?? :-)
It's funny how the depth information in your image is somehow reversed, when
I look at it 2d versus 3d.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
beauty
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo Asm wrote:
> When do we get a real 3d screen ?? :-)
They have three-dee screens now... I'm sure you've seen them. I think
it's just that old Cracker-Jack trick though: a grooved, plastic sheet
over a spliced image corresponding to the grooves. A person might be
able to make one themselves at home, provided one has the grooved,
plastic sheet :) I've got some liquid acrylic.... maybe I should try a
small experiment...
> It's funny how the depth information in your image is somehow reversed, when
> I look at it 2d versus 3d.
Have you tried diverging your eyes to it yet? That really screws it up!
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is MEGACOOL. Especially the depth when viewing crosseyed is especially
cool. How did you do that? Is there some math involved to get everything
aligned? Could you do a desktop size (1024x768 or 1600x1200) please?
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> schreef in bericht
news:410### [at] hotmailcom...
| Hi everybody!
|
| Here's an attempt at greebling with a modified crackle pattern. It's
| meant to be viewed cross-eyed to bring out the depth. I could have used
| higher focal-blur settings if I had the time :cD
|
| The scene consists of a single height field, which was declared and
| copied several times. One 2x2 area_light was used. The faked indirect
| illumination is a proximity pattern based on the final object.
|
| Total rendering time: about 20 minutes. Rendered completely in POV-Ray
| 3.6 (except for my signature, which was added with the Gimp).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:410### [at] hotmailcom
> Hugo Asm wrote:
>
>> When do we get a real 3d screen ?? :-)
>
>
> They have three-dee screens now... I'm sure you've seen them. I
> think it's just that old Cracker-Jack trick though: a grooved,
> plastic sheet over a spliced image corresponding to the grooves.
No. They actually have another LC behind the main one which can selectively
let the backlight shine through to reach either your left or right eye.
This way you can switch between 2D and 3D in software.
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/040610.html
http://www.sle.sharp.co.uk/research/3d/3dbackground.htm
^^^^ where I work :-)
> A
> person might be able to make one themselves at home, provided one
> has the grooved, plastic sheet :) I've got some liquid acrylic....
> maybe I should try a small experiment...
Hmmm it would be pretty tricky, and it looks rubbish compared to the above
method. This method is used for producing hardcopy 3D photos though.
>> It's funny how the depth information in your image is somehow
>> reversed, when I look at it 2d versus 3d.
>
> Have you tried diverging your eyes to it yet? That really screws it
> up!
>
> -Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SomeOne wrote:
> This is MEGACOOL.
MEGATHANKS!
> Especially the depth when viewing crosseyed is especially
> cool. How did you do that? Is there some math involved to get everything
> aligned?
With POV there is always math. But this time it was as simple as
counting by ten. I repeated the hf object along the x-axis and placed
the light source waaay the heck out there, so as not to cause any trouble.
> Could you do a desktop size (1024x768 or 1600x1200) please?
Um...no time for that, but here's an 800x600 :)
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'at2.jpg' (125 KB)
Preview of image 'at2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Really Cool!
Only on top of the "middle-row-teeth", the surface looks like a wallpaper to
me. Is that something with my eyes or are there troubles making those
features 3D?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Kollross wrote:
> Really Cool!
Thanks!
> Only on top of the "middle-row-teeth", the surface looks like a wallpaper to
> me. Is that something with my eyes or are there troubles making those
> features 3D?
They are 3D, but it can be a bit hard to see for two reasons: #1 - The
effect is very slight on that part due to shallow details. #2 - Jpeg
compression really tore this image up, thus 'mixing-up' details.
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
