Jaap schrieb:
> Just note that I used Gilles Tran make cloud code, not your code.
> I don't think the problem with the perpendicular view is very important, I'm
> probably the only one dat rendered a cloud along one of the axes, using a
> parallel camera, and I just did it to measure the size of the cloud.

I'll check nevertherles , since it bothers me, if something don't work
as expected. ;-)

> tank you. did you see the final render/edit I just posted in
> povray.binary.animations ?
> 

impressive. at which school he was taken.
It seems to be a kind of coincindence as my brother has just graduated
to become a professional film-photographer.
To my unfortune he is more into traditional "analogue" filming. So all
my offers to spice up his work with some CG FX passed off.

Post a reply to this message

mmhh, ....

neither the render of mutliple clouds in direction of the viewing vector
showed some visible glitches nor I found rendering artefacts while
letting the cloud rotate around one of the major axis.

which version of povray do you use?

(myself using self compiled versions of povray 3.6.1 and megapov 2.1.1
under linux 2.6 on P4@3GHz/1GB)

...dave

Post a reply to this message

David El Tom <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> mmhh, ....
>
> neither the render of mutliple clouds in direction of the viewing vector
> showed some visible glitches nor I found rendering artefacts while
> letting the cloud rotate around one of the major axis.

maybe I did something wrong. maybe this helps: it's the pov file i used to
render
the perpendicular views. (attached)

>
> which version of povray do you use?
megapov 1.2.1 (testing on Linux, redered on windows render farm)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'showcloud.pov.txt' (5 KB)

Jaap schrieb:
> David El Tom <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> mmhh, ....
>>
>> neither the render of mutliple clouds in direction of the viewing vector
>> showed some visible glitches nor I found rendering artefacts while
>> letting the cloud rotate around one of the major axis.
> 
> maybe I did something wrong. maybe this helps: it's the pov file i used to
> render
> the perpendicular views. (attached)
> 
>> which version of povray do you use?
> megapov 1.2.1 (testing on Linux, redered on windows render farm)

yepp, got the same result ...

BUT, if you comment out the grid you get the following result (see
attached render)

... dave

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'showcloud.jpg' (8 KB)

Preview of image 'showcloud.jpg'

found the problem with your code ...

what you see (or believe not to see) are the shadows of the grid !

simple add "no_shadow" keyword at the end of the grid union and your
code works as expected.

... dave

Post a reply to this message

David El Tom <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> yepp, got the same result ...
>
> BUT, if you comment out the grid you get the following result (see
> attached render)

strange. I did experiment a bit with slightly rotating the camera and/or the
cloud yesterday, but that did not help.
It's defenately the grid. with just the horizontal grid lines I only get the
horizontal black bar. if I decrease the grid (cylinder) radius, the black
bar is thinner too. It almost looks like the grid is casting a shadow on
the cloud, bot the grid should be behind the cloud. wired. anyway, it's not
in the cloud. :-)

thanks.

Post a reply to this message

just missed your last post.
yes, it's a shadow. the z in:
light_source { z*100000 C_Sun*5 }
was negative, so everything was lid from the back instead of from the front.

Post a reply to this message

Jaap nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 27/05/2006 08:11:
> David El Tom <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Gilles Tran gives a very good comparision between diffrent methods when
>> it comes to render clouds.
>> http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/sources13.htm
> 
> yes very good. I even sucessfully used it in animations.
> 
> But the real problem with this method is that you reach the 255 raytrace
> limit very soon when one cloud is in front of another.
> Would it be possible to hack povray to accept trace levels of >255 ? or at
> least not make the pixel black when it reaches the maximum trace level?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
You can prevent reaching the max_trace_level by altering adc_bailout to a larger
value. Default to 
1/256.
When you reach max_trace_level, you get black. When you reach adc_bailout, you get the
current value.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell your friends over and over
again that you 
love them.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> You can prevent reaching the max_trace_level by
> altering adc_bailout to a larger value. Default to
> 1/256. When you reach max_trace_level, you get black.
> When you reach adc_bailout, you get the current value.

sounds promising, I'm going to try that.
thanks!

Post a reply to this message

Jaap nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 31/05/2006 16:52:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> You can prevent reaching the max_trace_level by
>> altering adc_bailout to a larger value. Default to
>> 1/256. When you reach max_trace_level, you get black.
>> When you reach adc_bailout, you get the current value.
> 
> sounds promising, I'm going to try that.
> thanks!
> 
Don't overdo it. You will loose some quality, and may get some artefacts if you push
that to far.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?

Post a reply to this message