POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : A more successful render (~120KB) Server Time
6 Aug 2024 23:20:08 EDT (-0400)
  A more successful render (~120KB) (Message 11 to 20 of 26)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 6 Messages >>>
From: EagleSun
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:50:00
Message: <web.452d9f2ce7485ee65862e4250@news.povray.org>
Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>
> > Well, let's somewhat better... (Although there's still no glassware.) It
> > seems just putting something *under* the water made all the difference.
> >
>
> You're getting there.
> The color of water is determined by what's underneath it because water by
> itself is colorless. Have a look at a swimmingpool :)

Are you using media?  Try "absorption" color and put a little blue.  Also
try "extinction".

Let _magnitude represent the strength of absorption as a single floating-pt
number, such as 0.05 or 2.5, etc.

absorption rgb <0.1 0.2 0.7>*_magnitude
extinction 1


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:56:36
Message: <452da0d4$1@news.povray.org>
"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:452d4f41@news.povray.org...
> Well, let's somewhat better... (Although there's still no glassware.) It
> seems just putting something *under* the water made all the difference.

    And wouldn't that be natural in real life? What you've got to determine 
is the depth of your water.

     Is it a shallow lake, or a deep sea? Shallower, clearer. Deeper, 
darker.

     Also, if that's 9 hours 'work' time, then you need to reduce that. 
That's wasted chat-up lines...  ;)


       ~Steve~


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 03:03:22
Message: <452de8ba$1@news.povray.org>
"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> schreef in bericht 
news:452d5c31$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Because, being a predefined texture, the parts that make it up are 
> actually declared in 12 seperate places and then gradually merged 
> together... heh.
>
You could , like Alain did for metals.inc, change all the stones.inc ambient 
statements and save it as a stones2.inc (or whatever).
Solves the problem.

Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:20:01
Message: <web.452e5c34e7485ee643a5e2560@news.povray.org>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> > It's a bit brute force but you can always do:
> > global_settings { ambient_light 0 }
>
"EagleSun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Before using that, make sure you don't want to see the sun.  If you do, the
> global ambient_light of 0 will make the sun (and reflections of it)
> disappear.

If you must... :-)

   looks_like
   {  sphere
      {  0, R
         pigment { rgb 1 } //renders as light_source color
         finish { diffuse 1 }
         double_illuminate
      }
   }


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:34:16
Message: <452e7c98$1@news.povray.org>
> looks nice.

Thanks.

> in my eyes water is too clean. maybe you try to add wrinkles on surface.

Possibly... OTOH, I'm going for a "clean" look. We'll see.

> second suggestion: when I let fallen an cube into water I do not see one
> concentric circle, I see four running away from every side of my cube.

Agreed. I have just worked out a new way to do this - but it makes the 
render time increase to a whopping 10 hours! o__O


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:35:04
Message: <452e7cc8$1@news.povray.org>
> By the way, forgot to mention... 9 hours + 50 minutes render time. 
> (Can't wait to do the radiosity version!)

Actually, that's a lie. The version I posted rendered in under 1 hour. 
The *new* version renders in 10 hours...


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:35:42
Message: <452e7cee@news.povray.org>
>> (It's Stone8 from stones.inc. Unfortunately, it appears to have a
>> nonzero ambient setting. *sigh* So I will have to use some other texture
>> for the final render...)
> 
> texture {
>  T_Stone8
>  finish {ambient 0.005}
> }
> 
> I do that every time I use one of the stone textures, or they end up glowing
> too much.

I tried that, but it didn't seem to affect the image in any way... (But 
then, I tried to set it to 0.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:37:22
Message: <452e7d52$1@news.povray.org>
>      Also, if that's 9 hours 'work' time, then you need to reduce that. 
> That's wasted chat-up lines...  ;)

:-P

No, that's 9 hours of render time. (And, as I just corrected myself, the 
image posted here is *not* the version that takes 9 hours...)


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:38:44
Message: <452e7da4$1@news.povray.org>
>> The color of water is determined by what's underneath it because water by
>> itself is colorless. Have a look at a swimmingpool :)
> 
> Swimming pools are tricky to judge.  Every one i've ever seen is *painted*
> baby boy blue.
> 
> Water is colorless at the shallow depth that Orchid is rendering.  However,
> water absorbs light differentially by wavelength.  Red is the first to go,
> and green fades as you go deeper.  If your body of water is deep enough, it
> will show blue all by itself.  (Otherwise, the oceans would be the color of
> basalt and diatomaceous earth.)

I've heard this one before... Does water actually absorb light, or is 
this due to scattering like with the sky?


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v3
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 12 Oct 2006 13:45:50
Message: <452e7f4e$1@news.povray.org>
>> Because, being a predefined texture, the parts that make it up are
>> actually declared in 12 seperate places and then gradually merged
>> together... heh.
> 
> Oh sorry I forgot that, I didn't use predefined textures for a long time,
> and now I remember that is one of the reasons :)

Oh yeah. ;-)

>> By the way, forgot to mention... 9 hours + 50 minutes render time.
>> (Can't wait to do the radiosity version!)
> 
> For the moment your scene does not need radiosity does it?

It does once you turn off the ambient setting on the sea floor. :-S 
(Actually, the radiosity version I'm working on is really quite nice. 
But... slow.)

>>> And what is this strange square on the left?
>> If anybody can figure out what the hell that actually is, LET ME KNOW! >_<
> 
> Strange

Uh, yes.

>> Weirdly, I changed the ground texture and the square vanished. Go figure!
> 
> Strange again

And also yes...

I can only think it's some kind of internal reflection issue, or maybe 
something about coincident surfaces...


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 6 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.