 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wait, *dude*!...
How about that?? This is awesome! :-D
I tried with no media at all, and it looked neat. But... a little
spartan... So I added a tiny weeny bit of blue absorption. BINGO! Is
this crispy or what? >:-D
Radiosity is still putting strange patchy marks where there shouldn't
be, and I still haven't found the optimum position for the light source
yet... but I think this is nearly done. :-)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'invisible17.jpg' (48 KB)
Preview of image 'invisible17.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4478a320@news.povray.org...
> Wait, *dude*!...
>
> How about that?? This is awesome! :-D
>
> I tried with no media at all, and it looked neat. But... a little
> spartan... So I added a tiny weeny bit of blue absorption. BINGO! Is
> this crispy or what? >:-D
>
> Radiosity is still putting strange patchy marks where there shouldn't
> be, and I still haven't found the optimum position for the light source
> yet... but I think this is nearly done. :-)
>
It's getting cool as...peppermint?
It's time to work on the "S" isn't it?
Are you sure radiosity adds anything to nearly transparent objects?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's getting cool as...peppermint?
Yes! :-D LOL.
> It's time to work on the "S" isn't it?
Um... yeah... multiple cylinders, torii and cubes it going to take some
doing! :-(
I have a nice little macro that does all the other letters for me - but
it won't work for curved edges. *sigh*
> Are you sure radiosity adds anything to nearly transparent objects?
Have a look at #4 and #5. You see how pitch black they are? That's how
this image looks without radiosity. With it, the image is so much
brighter...
Also, if you look carefully, you should notice that where the letters
touch the ground, it's slightly darker there. (I'm still fiddling with
the rad settings.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4478af33$1@news.povray.org...
> > Are you sure radiosity adds anything to nearly transparent objects?
>
> Have a look at #4 and #5. You see how pitch black they are? That's how
> this image looks without radiosity. With it, the image is so much
> brighter...
>
> Also, if you look carefully, you should notice that where the letters
> touch the ground, it's slightly darker there. (I'm still fiddling with
> the rad settings.)
Believe it or not but I'm a radiosity buff when there are surfaces which
diffuse iteratively light.
Maybe here you have a skysphere?
Did you try a remote bright (even over rgb 1... I usually use 1.5 to 1.8 )
point (or small area but render would get longer) light with an extra
shadowless large arealight?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 wrote:
> Wait, *dude*!...
>
> How about that?? This is awesome! :-D
>
Agreed!
But I've been wondering if the I's might look better if they were a bit
narrower -- with shorter horizontal bars. IOW a proportional instead of
a monospaced "font". :-)
-=- Larry -=-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> > It's time to work on the "S" isn't it?
>
> Um... yeah... multiple cylinders, torii and cubes it going to take some
> doing! :-(
>
> I have a nice little macro that does all the other letters for me - but
> it won't work for curved edges. *sigh*
Hmmmmm, all the other letters are angular blocks. What about doing
something like 45 degree angles on it rather than curves?
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wait, *dude*!...
>>
>> How about that?? This is awesome! :-D
>>
> Agreed!
Weeeeee! :-)
> But I've been wondering if the I's might look better if they were a bit
> narrower -- with shorter horizontal bars. IOW a proportional instead of
> a monospaced "font". :-)
Um... yeah. It probably would. (The "I" in particular.) However, that
does make the maths harder. :-\
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>Are you sure radiosity adds anything to nearly transparent objects?
>>
>>Have a look at #4 and #5. You see how pitch black they are? That's how
>>this image looks without radiosity. With it, the image is so much
>>brighter...
>>
>>Also, if you look carefully, you should notice that where the letters
>>touch the ground, it's slightly darker there. (I'm still fiddling with
>>the rad settings.)
>
> Believe it or not but I'm a radiosity buff when there are surfaces which
> diffuse iteratively light.
> Maybe here you have a skysphere?
Well, there's a bright blue plane above the floor with ambient=1. ;-)
> Did you try a remote bright (even over rgb 1... I usually use 1.5 to 1.8 )
> point (or small area but render would get longer) light with an extra
> shadowless large arealight?
Hmm... maybe I could try a parallel light? Then the distance wouldn't be
significant. (Plus I wouldn't get that annoying effect with the
reflections changing angle like that.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice!
--
#####-----#####-----#####
POV Tips and Hints at ...
http://povman.blogspot.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
