 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ross wrote:
> pretty cool. you should use the fractal idea in the random level
> generator... that's what this scene looks like. a level from a video
> game.
Hmm. It's a bit difficult to ensure that a randomly generated level doesn't
become impossible to solve, if it doesn't follow strict rules. I wouldn't
know how to apply a fractal-approach to it...
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Maybe it's just me... something looks "wrong" with that focal blur...
I felt so too, especially when the blur (aperture) was stronger. I think
it's the complexity of the scene and the measures of depths that trick the
eye, so things look like they have a different distance to the camera than
they really have (see attached image).
But I don't know what to do about it.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cubes_fractal_depth.jpg' (42 KB)
Preview of image 'cubes_fractal_depth.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Fuller wrote:
> Very nice.
Thanks!
> Is there something misaligned though? The main 'object' that the
> sphere sits on has what appears to be a small step on the top surface
> (just left and in front of the right middle protrusion). Same on the left
> face.
> I don't see it repeated in the smaller versions
>
> Perhaps it is deliberate but I think it might look better without
> this.
As Alain said, they are actual steps, just like all the other ones in the
geometry. Since it's all random, I can't directly control it, other than
trying to use a different random seed, which will completely change the
image.
> And yes - the focal blur looks a bit strange. How about moving the
> focal point and aperture to sharpen up that foreground peak and blur
> the background ever so slightly.
That's a possibility. I think I'll try it out and see how it looks.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe it's just me... something looks "wrong" with that focal blur...
>
> I felt so too, especially when the blur (aperture) was stronger. I think
> it's the complexity of the scene and the measures of depths that trick the
> eye, so things look like they have a different distance to the camera than
> they really have (see attached image).
Fractals typically possess scale invariance, which makes it very hard to
figure out how big they are. ;-)
(Take a small rock, put it close to the camera, and watch as it becomes
a mountain peak. Brilliant stuff...)
No, I'm not sure what you can do about it either. Ho hum!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> Challanged by James S., here is a quick image I threw together with many
> objects generated by not so many lines of code. It took 13 minutes to render
> with area_lights and focal blur.
>
> Rune
>
I should have said - You have defined a new variant on RSOCP:
RSOFP - Reflective Sphere On Fractal Plane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Fuller wrote:
> I should have said - You have defined a new variant on RSOCP:
>
> RSOFP - Reflective Sphere On Fractal Plane.
Yeah! ... except it's not a sphere ... and it's not a plane ...
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <new### [at] runevision com> wrote:
> Challanged by James S., here is a quick image I threw together with many
> objects generated by not so many lines of code. It took 13 minutes to render
> with area_lights and focal blur.
[...]
I like this. Simple, to-the-point, and draws your attention. Well done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> Yeah! ... except it's not a sphere ... and it's not a plane ...
hi. any chance of a larger render (ie. 1920x1200, ie. my desktop ;-) or
the source for this render? i *really* like it. thanks.
bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If it is round and shiny then I'll accept even a superellipsoid.
And if the plane was indeed a plane it wouldn't be fractal - at least
not an interesting one.
So RSOFP it is :)
Rune wrote:
> Paul Fuller wrote:
>> I should have said - You have defined a new variant on RSOCP:
>>
>> RSOFP - Reflective Sphere On Fractal Plane.
>
> Yeah! ... except it's not a sphere ... and it's not a plane ...
>
> Rune
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
quickfur wrote:
> I like this. Simple, to-the-point, and draws your attention. Well
> done.
Thank you!
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
