"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.46af290816060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>
> This is coming along nicely. Will we see a glimpse of Cathy skipping along
> the quay?
>

Well Stephen, look at this little vignette, taken from the lower right-hand 
corner of the image. I have added Cathy (and her little brother), and it 
seems that the observer/beholder has been exposed  :-)
This is a small test render using radiosity to see how that is going to 
affect the scene.

Not so visible here, but I have used Soft Decoration Groups (Poser Cloth 
Room) for the yellow braids on Cathy's dress. Up close, these show as the 
three dimensional decorations they are in reality.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Oreille Indiscrete.png' (40 KB)

Preview of image 'Oreille Indiscrete.png'

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.46af290816060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
> >
> > This is coming along nicely. Will we see a glimpse of Cathy skipping along
> > the quay?
> >
>
> Well Stephen, look at this little vignette, taken from the lower right-hand
> corner of the image. I have added Cathy (and her little brother), and it
> seems that the observer/beholder has been exposed  :-)
> This is a small test render using radiosity to see how that is going to
> affect the scene.
>
> Not so visible here, but I have used Soft Decoration Groups (Poser Cloth
> Room) for the yellow braids on Cathy's dress. Up close, these show as the
> three dimensional decorations they are in reality.
>
> Thomas

Oh! That is intriguing. A bit small and out of context not to mention it is

something wrong with their eyes? When I adjusted the size and contrast to


getting a white eye look.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.46c2d09716060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh! That is intriguing. A bit small and out of context not to mention it 
> is
> a bit dark for my monitor. But I've mentioned that before :-) Is there
> something wrong with their eyes? When I adjusted the size and contrast to
> see it better the eyes look strange. I've noticed in a couple of my models
> that I had to tweak the "Eyeball" material's transparency because I was
> getting a white eye look.
>

It is the same scale as the main image and is not intended to intrude too 
much on the main story. It is a kind of sideline. And remember, we are in 
the shadow here, the only light coming from the sunlight reflection on the 
wall to the right, and diffused light coming from the left.

The eyeballs have been corrected with M_Glass3 (which FlyerX advised me to 
use). I suppose that what you see is the reflection of the sunlight that is 
reflected from the wall. However, the anti aliasing (0.3) is too coarse for 
this image and should be finer. In the final render this will be brought 
down to 0.1. Otherwise, I 'know' that the eyes are rendered correctly. Both 
of them looking upwards increases in fact the amount of white visible too.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> schreef in bericht 
news:46c2e218@news.povray.org...
>
>
> The eyeballs have been corrected with M_Glass3 (which FlyerX advised me to 
> use). I suppose that what you see is the reflection of the sunlight that 
> is reflected from the wall. However, the anti aliasing (0.3) is too coarse 
> for this image and should be finer. In the final render this will be 
> brought down to 0.1. Otherwise, I 'know' that the eyes are rendered 
> correctly. Both of them looking upwards increases in fact the amount of 
> white visible too.
>

I can confirm this now: I rendered only the eyes with aa=0.01 and they 
appear correctly, without white glare.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> schreef in bericht
> news:46c2e218@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> > The eyeballs have been corrected with M_Glass3 (which FlyerX advised me to
> > use). I suppose that what you see is the reflection of the sunlight that
> > is reflected from the wall. However, the anti aliasing (0.3) is too coarse
> > for this image and should be finer. In the final render this will be
> > brought down to 0.1. Otherwise, I 'know' that the eyes are rendered
> > correctly. Both of them looking upwards increases in fact the amount of
> > white visible too.
> >
>
> I can confirm this now: I rendered only the eyes with aa=0.01 and they
> appear correctly, without white glare.
>
> Thomas

I like the idea of having a little in joke that is unobtrusive. The problem
here is, any image will be looked at critically with respect to the poster,
yours, amongst others more than most. (Your own fault for being so good :-)

PoseRay transparency.



I'm looking forward to the next version.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.46c30e8216060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>
> I like the idea of having a little in joke that is unobtrusive. The 
> problem
> here is, any image will be looked at critically with respect to the 
> poster,
> yours, amongst others more than most. (Your own fault for being so good 
> :-)

Hm hm hm... I shall refrain from posting from now on..... :-)
Well, there is nothing wrong with a good bunch of criticism. Over the years 
that has helped me a lot, sometimes by just discarding it as nonsense   :-) 
In the end, one has to make one's own choices.
The idea of a little joke embedded in the image is always at the back of my 
mind. Sometimes it is functional, sometimes not. In this case, I believe it 
can add an interesting item: the observer is confronted to different story 
lines, one as a neutral observer, one as a participant into the main drama 
plot, one as an actor in the juvenile side story. Others may come to mind I 
am sure. That is left to the observer.

> It's interesting that FlyerX suggested M_Glass3 I've just been maxing the
> PoseRay transparency.
To a question I asked him about the transparency issue with the eyes (Apollo 
Maximus), FlyerX answered as follows
<quote>
In my opinion the iris for this model should not have any highlight. All the 
surface gloss should come from the cornea and EyeWhite materials. If the 
cornea is set to material{M_Glass3} and the iris set to black highlight you 
should get a better result. See attached image. You can go into the POV-Ray 
material tab and add the Glass3 material to the cornea. PoseRay will send 
that material to POV-Ray at render time. For Victoria 2 models I also use 
M_Glass3 as the eyeball material that covers the eye and gives much better 
results that any Poser related material.
<unquote>

> Anti aliasing is something I've been experimenting with recently, trying 
> to
> get the fastest acceptable value for an animation. I'm having fun.
I suppose that for an animation you can get away with a coarser anti 
aliasing?

>
> I'm looking forward to the next version.
Wait and see :-) May take some time now because I am going to render with 
radiosity...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.46c30e8216060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I like the idea of having a little in joke that is unobtrusive. The
> > problem
> > here is, any image will be looked at critically with respect to the
> > poster,
> > yours, amongst others more than most. (Your own fault for being so good
> > :-)
>
> Hm hm hm... I shall refrain from posting from now on..... :-)
> Well, there is nothing wrong with a good bunch of criticism. Over the years
> that has helped me a lot, sometimes by just discarding it as nonsense   :-)
> In the end, one has to make one's own choices.


confirm what a bunch of nitpicker we are :-)

> The idea of a little joke embedded in the image is always at the back of my
> mind. Sometimes it is functional, sometimes not. In this case, I believe it
> can add an interesting item: the observer is confronted to different story
> lines, one as a neutral observer, one as a participant into the main drama
> plot, one as an actor in the juvenile side story. Others may come to mind I
> am sure. That is left to the observer.


said earlier about the way scenes are built. IIRC she preferred to build
scenes from the top down while I prefer to build them from the bottom up. I
find that my final image can vary considerably from my original concept as
each new object/character influences the way the scene develops. Sometimes

another direction. Keep up including you family as a motif.


> > It's interesting that FlyerX suggested M_Glass3 I've just been maxing the
> > PoseRay transparency.
> To a question I asked him about the transparency issue with the eyes (Apollo
> Maximus), FlyerX answered as follows
[snip]


Kung Fu master. So I just eliminated the problem.

> > Anti aliasing is something I've been experimenting with recently, trying
> > to
> > get the fastest acceptable value for an animation. I'm having fun.
> I suppose that for an animation you can get away with a coarser anti
> aliasing?

I certainly hope so but as there is a lot of static components and I made
the mistake of using a CSG to make fluting on a couple of columns that give


> >
> > I'm looking forward to the next version.
> Wait and see :-) May take some time now because I am going to render with
> radiosity...
>

Have a book to hand.
BTW I've kept a couple of Ken Macleod paperbacks if you want them. Now I'm
here the postage would not signify

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.46c4154216060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>
> Oh please don't stop posting. Peer review is always useful even if only to
> confirm what a bunch of nitpicker we are :-)
Allright. You asked for it. Here is a final WIP in pre-radiosity format, 
with all latest changes (amongst others the use of LightSys)


>>
>
> Have a book to hand.
> BTW I've kept a couple of Ken Macleod paperbacks if you want them. Now I'm
> here the postage would not signify
Hey! That would be fantastic! Thank you! I'll send you my address 
separately.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Eavesdropping.jpg' (120 KB)

Preview of image 'Eavesdropping.jpg'

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.46c4154216060248c4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Oh please don't stop posting. Peer review is always useful even if only to
> > confirm what a bunch of nitpicker we are :-)
> Allright. You asked for it. Here is a final WIP in pre-radiosity format,
> with all latest changes (amongst others the use of LightSys)
>


> >>
> >
> > Have a book to hand.
> > BTW I've kept a couple of Ken Macleod paperbacks if you want them. Now I'm
> > here the postage would not signify
> Hey! That would be fantastic! Thank you! I'll send you my address
> separately.
>






Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> How about sphere_sweeps for column and flutes? Evaluating the spline
> functions would give any circumference you need.
> 


I am not really sure there is support for an interpolated or function 
driven reduction of the radius in the sphere_sweep syntax but I have 
only ever looked at it briefly. In any case I still would not be able to 
compose such a function.

So I'll take a look. Of course I can improvise my own.  (I guess I do 
that sort of thing a lot an so was hoping for some other way.)  Since 
you prodded me with this post, though, I will probably improvise 
something with spheres and cones along a spline.  I'll build the spline 
using the trace function and sample the sphere surface after it is 
already scaled.  I'll do it just to see how it works.

But constructing the thing in mesh is far and away the pragmatic 
approach, it now seems obvious.

Post a reply to this message