 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to second the above - certainly the most photo-realistic raytrace
I've ever seen! Personally, I like the slight blurred effect - it makes it
more real. Perfectly focused and framed photographs are very difficult to
take - the blur is suggestive of the flames' dancing and the waves rolling
in, and also hides that crisp 'CG' look that so many otherwise incredible
images possess.
Now that I come to think about it, most 'nice' effects obtained using
photography are actually artifacts of an imperfect recording - the quest
for photo-realism is a matter of hunting down lens and film glitches. And
then shooting them, stuffing them and mounting them so they look pretty
hanging on the wall.
With regard to the flames in water - could be firewood soaked in gasoline?
:)
Bill, not worthy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah that's kinda my thoughts on the subject too: When you take a photo you
go to great lengths to avoid these errors, but when it's CG you should
intentionally create them so it loses the perfection people expect in CG :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:web.43732ff8af2812b6731f01d10@news.povray.org...
>I have to second the above - certainly the most photo-realistic raytrace
> I've ever seen! Personally, I like the slight blurred effect - it makes it
> more real. Perfectly focused and framed photographs are very difficult to
> take - the blur is suggestive of the flames' dancing and the waves rolling
> in, and also hides that crisp 'CG' look that so many otherwise incredible
> images possess.
>
> Now that I come to think about it, most 'nice' effects obtained using
> photography are actually artifacts of an imperfect recording - the quest
> for photo-realism is a matter of hunting down lens and film glitches. And
> then shooting them, stuffing them and mounting them so they look pretty
> hanging on the wall.
>
> With regard to the flames in water - could be firewood soaked in gasoline?
> :)
>
> Bill, not worthy
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v2" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:43732846$1@news.povray.org...
> The wood doesn't seem to be on fire, despite being surrounded by it. And
> the flames don't seem to cast any light on the surrounding rocks. But
> other than that...
The lack of light is probably accurate, in fact the flames are brighter than
they should be. I have full radiosity in the scene so if you can't see
lighting from the flames it's because they're so much darker than the sun.
In fact I've actually cheated an made the flames brighter than they should
be in daylight (I looked at some photos of flames).
> Actually, that's the best CG flames I've ever seen. How did you do that?
Emissive media with a little absorption, granite pattern with some
turbulence for the density, modulated by a spherical pattern. Then a couple
of adjustments to the pattern to give a very sudden change in density from
outside the flame to inside. Then tweak all the parameters until it looks
right. The source code makes it look pretty complex but all those nested
pigment_patterns are just to control the boundary between inside and outside
the flame.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>Actually, that's the best CG flames I've ever seen. How did you do that?
>
>
> Emissive media with a little absorption, granite pattern with some
> turbulence for the density, modulated by a spherical pattern. Then a couple
> of adjustments to the pattern to give a very sudden change in density from
> outside the flame to inside. Then tweak all the parameters until it looks
> right. The source code makes it look pretty complex but all those nested
> pigment_patterns are just to control the boundary between inside and outside
> the flame.
...so fundamentally, it's granite and turbulence?
(I just couldn't think of a pattern that looks flame-like, that's all.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Tek saw fit to write:
> So, I submit it to you folks as a curiosity. Fool your friends, be the
> life of the party, etc.
>
> Comments/critiques welcome.
Very nice, it has some kind of Myst/Riven flavour...
My only comment is that there seem to be a couple of black spots in the
stones, and there are some bright pixels in the beach areas of the left
edge. Also, maybe a very faint smudge of cloud somewhere could add a bit
of atmosphere, not that the image needs it much, though.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Amazing work. One of the most pleasing things I've seen in a long time.
Compositionally, it has both elements of stylization (what a boring waste to
do actual realism), but shows a lot of deference to the physics of
plausible-universe (if not our planet) landscapes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v2" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:437484e3$1@news.povray.org...
> ...so fundamentally, it's granite and turbulence?
>
> (I just couldn't think of a pattern that looks flame-like, that's all.)
Yeah basically, though you can get stuff that doesn't look at all like fire
if you just use granite and turbulence, hence all the extra info :)
Oh, and it's low frequency turbulence (2 octaves I think). That's important.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Those black spots look dark brown on my monitor, and they're intentional,
just imperfections in the stone. The bright pixels are some kinda wierd
error that I couldn't track down.
The cloud's a nice suggestion, I'll try it if I work on the image some more.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Jellby" <me### [at] privacynet> wrote in message
news:aq5### [at] badulaqueunexes...
> Among other things, Tek saw fit to write:
>
>> So, I submit it to you folks as a curiosity. Fool your friends, be the
>> life of the party, etc.
>>
>> Comments/critiques welcome.
>
> Very nice, it has some kind of Myst/Riven flavour...
>
> My only comment is that there seem to be a couple of black spots in the
> stones, and there are some bright pixels in the beach areas of the left
> edge. Also, maybe a very faint smudge of cloud somewhere could add a bit
> of atmosphere, not that the image needs it much, though.
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>...so fundamentally, it's granite and turbulence?
>>
>>(I just couldn't think of a pattern that looks flame-like, that's all.)
>
>
> Yeah basically, though you can get stuff that doesn't look at all like fire
> if you just use granite and turbulence, hence all the extra info :)
>
> Oh, and it's low frequency turbulence (2 octaves I think). That's important.
Bet it doesn't look flamey when animated. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v2" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4378f150$1@news.povray.org...
> Bet it doesn't look flamey when animated. ;-)
You know, if I were bored and had nothing better to do with my free time,
I'd prove you wrong.
(have a look at p.b.a)
:)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
