 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, this looks very good indeed!
Looks like an isosurface in fact. Not sure I really understand the
technique, though. Do you plan to provide us with a little tutorial when you
are done? That would be very much appreciated indeed.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> Yes, this looks very good indeed!
> Looks like an isosurface in fact. Not sure I really understand the
> technique, though. Do you plan to provide us with a little tutorial when you
> are done? That would be very much appreciated indeed.
I agree with Thomas - looks wonderful, but er, run that past me again? :)
Rock is so hard to get right. The only satisfactory solution I have found
is isosurfaces, which carry their own problems. I like the lack of scale
here - these could easily be either the size of steps, or vast towering
slabs. Keep it up!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> My goal was to increase the realism of height_field rocks by separately
> texturing the edges, the sides, and the inside edges of the formation.
>
> To meet this goal I employed an edge-finding pigment to determine the
> outside and inside edges of the rocks, and then used it as a patterned
> texture_map. To save time on the final render, I used Rune's illusion
> include library to project the edge data onto the rocks at render time.
>
> The scene was rendered with low radiosity settings. Slight noise and a
> black border were added with the Gimp. I gave it a final pass with a
> POV-based, luminous color bleeding effect.
>
> I still have farther to take this technique. Is it looking promising so
> far? Questions, comments, appreciated as always~
>
> ~Sam
Wonderful! Looks exactly like some broken concrete blocks I saw in a parking
area a while ago.
How about doing a tut on the procedure to make them...? (Hint hint!)
VERRY nice.
--
Stefan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.4696030ee03da59e731f01d10@news.povray.org...
I like the lack of scale
> here - these could easily be either the size of steps, or vast towering
> slabs. Keep it up!
Definately, I'll go with that.
~Steve~
>
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thibaut Jonckheere wrote:
>
> I am not sure I understand the whole procedure, but the result is
> simply amazing !
Thanks! I can still take it farther, to produce something more
realistic. Better radiosity would help, but I'm not patient enough for
anything over 2 hours, at the moment.
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Yes, this looks very good indeed!
> Looks like an isosurface in fact. Not sure I really understand the
> technique, though. Do you plan to provide us with a little tutorial when you
> are done? That would be very much appreciated indeed.
>
> Thomas
I could make a tutorial, yes. It would be an honor for people to use it!
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I agree with Thomas - looks wonderful, but er, run that past me again? :)
Thanks. I'll just have to make a tutorial. It would be easer to explain
the process visually (I'm a visual learner myself).
> Rock is so hard to get right. The only satisfactory solution I have found
> is isosurfaces, which carry their own problems.
Isosurfaces. Yeah. Two major reasons I don't use them for this kind of
thing: long render times, floating rocks. When I get a new computer, I
might be inclined to go back to them.
> I like the lack of scale
> here - these could easily be either the size of steps, or vast towering
> slabs. Keep it up!
I will! thanks!
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Wonderful! Looks exactly like some broken concrete blocks I saw in a
parking
> area a while ago.
I called it rhyolite (volcanic ash/cement) after I rendered it.... it
can be anything, really :)
> How about doing a tut on the procedure to make them...? (Hint hint!)
I think I will.
> VERRY nice.
Thanks!
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] THIShotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:46967a1b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I could make a tutorial, yes. It would be an honor for people to use it!
>
>
I think you would have a lot of customers. This looks like a very attractive
alternative to isosurfaces (within some conditions I suppose).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Samuel Benge <stb### [at] THIShotmailcom> wrote:
> I still have farther to take this technique. Is it looking promising so
> far? Questions, comments, appreciated as always~
>
> ~Sam
What the others said: I'm not sure I understand the technique, but it looks
extremely promising.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
