> Then please cancel 3 of your 4 messages.

OK, it is done now.
 
> Please not that this image will not suffer any serious
> damages if saved in the jpg-format instead of the png-format.
> If you do this the file size can be reduced to 75KB or less,
> instead of 289KB or even 835KB.

I see it now -- the image could be saved in 46.1KB. I will take it into
account before posting again.

> I also recommend you to switch to another newsreader.
> E.g.: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

I am testing it right now. Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Frango com Nata wrote:
>>Then please cancel 3 of your 4 messages.
> 
> 
> OK, it is done now.
>  
> 
>>Please not that this image will not suffer any serious
>>damages if saved in the jpg-format instead of the png-format.
>>If you do this the file size can be reduced to 75KB or less,
>>instead of 289KB or even 835KB.
> 
> 
> I see it now -- the image could be saved in 46.1KB. I will take it into
> account before posting again.

Ok.
Images posted to this group seems to have an average size
about 200 KB, so image sizes up to 300 or 400 KB might be
accepatable. But one should always consider using the JPEG
file format and check how low the quality settings can be
set before the contents of the image starts to degrade.

This is to preserve server space and to make life easier
for those who only have a low-speed internet connection.


>>I also recommend you to switch to another newsreader.
>>E.g.: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Ooops ! Sorry to mislead you. What I meant was Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

Thunderbird is an email and news client, while Firefox is a
web browser.


> I am testing it right now. Thank you.

I see that you are now using "Mozilla 4.5 [es]". Isn't that
a very old version of Netscape ?

As of today, the "Mozilla Suite" seems to have reached v1.7.

Thunderbird and Firefox are good, lightweight standalone
and quite secure programs based on the Mozilla codebase.
IIRC they have some refinements and features that are not
found in the programs integrated into the Mozilla Suite.
(But I may be wrong about this.)

And all these Mozilla programs are open and free.

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
...
> As of today, the "Mozilla Suite" seems to have reached v1.7.

Forgot the link:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.net
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

> As for the image, interesting (btw how did You make the steam?), but
> "bubbles" should be like x4 smaller IMHO.

The steam is made up of spheres filled with non-uniform density
scattering media, with an IOR 1.0005 and enclosing a each one a
concentric sphere, half its radius, whose IOR is 1.001.
Both bubbles and steam spheres are spread and inflated according to a
certain 4-component vector function -- I guess I will try tweaking it a
bit...

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:

> Nice. I wouldn't want to drink it, though.

Can't blame you, either -- the image derives from an attempt of a
picture for a block of Chemistry notes, which I made at a very early
stage of my "POVing" :)
It's quite evolved now, but the liquid's appearance is still not
supposed to look very differently from a red solution found in any
laboratory.

> I'm guessing that steam is
> media contained in spheres?

You guessed right :)

Here's the original picture -- heh...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sangue fervendo.jpg' (30 KB)

Preview of image 'sangue fervendo.jpg'

Among other things, Frango com Nata saw fit to write:
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    chicken with cream?

> Here's the original picture -- heh...

Gee... that's what I call "coincident surfaces" ;-)

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Andrew the Orchid wrote:
> 
> Wow... that's brilliant!
> 
> Not sure about the steam, but the liquid is definitely very interesting.
> And I'm liking the texture of the surface the glass is sitting on too.
> In fact, the glass itself is nice. The shaddow should probably be more
> blurry to fit in with the whole look, but other than that... yeah!
> 
> Andrew.

Thanks! :)
Well, the liquid and the glass are pretty simple:

#declare Liquid=material{
  texture{
    pigment{rgbf<1,.2,.2,1>}
    finish{
      diffuse .8 specular .8 roughness .001 reflection{0, .5 fresnel}
    }
  }
  interior{ior 1.33 dispersion 1.008 dispersion_samples 7}
}
#declare Glass=material{
  texture{
    pigment{rgbf<.7,1,.9,1>}
    finish{
      ambient 0
      diffuse .3 brilliance 2
      specular .8 roughness .001
      reflection{0, .5 fresnel}
      conserve_energy
    }
  }
  interior{ior 1.5 dispersion 1.01 dispersion_samples 7}
}

The surface the glass is resting on, however, was meant to look like a
round wooden table, but I ended up letting it be.
Regarding the shadow, I suppose next time I'll try with an area light.

Post a reply to this message

stephen parkinson wrote:
> 
> is the glass cracked ? right hand side, if so, nice touch

Heheh... Guess you can see it that way, of course -- however, the effect
wasn't intended; it actually happens that a steam sphere intersects the
glass there, though I couldn't figure out exactly why it yields that
result yet :(
 
> buble size would be right if it was syrup/treacle :-)
> suspect bubbles/4 would make them almost invisible, boiling liquid
> usually has embedded disturbed bubbles in it ?
> stephen

Well, they're supposed to be quickly rising. But OK, I agree that at
least the distribution of bubble radii needs a touch.
As always, thanks for the feedback!

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> >>I also recommend you to switch to another newsreader.
> >>E.g.: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
> 
> Ooops ! Sorry to mislead you. What I meant was Thunderbird:
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
> 
> Thunderbird is an email and news client, while Firefox is a
> web browser.
>

Well, I will go and see. Thank you anyway.
 
> > I am testing it right now. Thank you.
> 
> I see that you are now using "Mozilla 4.5 [es]". Isn't that
> a very old version of Netscape ?

You mean Netscape Communicator 4.5 [es], right? Well, I still know very
little about Internet software other than Windows' defaults :( I
downloaded Netscape more-or-less by chance a few months ago, when
visiting several pages which recommended it to view them.

> As of today, the "Mozilla Suite" seems to have reached v1.7.
> 
> Thunderbird and Firefox are good, lightweight standalone
> and quite secure programs based on the Mozilla codebase.
> IIRC they have some refinements and features that are not
> found in the programs integrated into the Mozilla Suite.
> (But I may be wrong about this.)
> 
> And all these Mozilla programs are open and free.
> 
> --
> Tor Olav
> http://subcube.net
> http://subcube.com

I must take a look some day or other. Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Jellby wrote:
> 
> Among other things, Frango com Nata saw fit to write:
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                     chicken with cream?

Yes, heh, though I think "chicken and cream" would be a more idiomatic
translation.
It's a long story...

> 
> > Here's the original picture -- heh...
> 
> Gee... that's what I call "coincident surfaces" ;-)
> 

Indeed -- still, it took me quite a little time to realize the nature of
the problem then...

Post a reply to this message