POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : A more successful render (~120KB) Server Time
7 Aug 2024 01:26:17 EDT (-0400)
  A more successful render (~120KB) (Message 7 to 16 of 26)  
<<< Previous 6 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Gail Shaw
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:42:47
Message: <452d6557@news.povray.org>
"Orchid XP v3" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:452d4f41@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.


Post a reply to this message

From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:15:01
Message: <web.452d79d0e7485ee643a5e2560@news.povray.org>
Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> 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.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Tek
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:19:17
Message: <452d9815$1@news.povray.org>
It's a bit brute force but you can always do:
global_settings { ambient_light 0 }

Looking much better BTW. I suggest make the ripples smaller but nice work on 
the materials :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"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.
>
> (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...)
>


Post a reply to this message

From: EagleSun
Subject: Re: A more successful render (~120KB)
Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:45:00
Message: <web.452d9db2e7485ee65862e4250@news.povray.org>
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> It's a bit brute force but you can always do:
> global_settings { ambient_light 0 }

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.


Post a reply to this message

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

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

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