 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok. I'm active on different fronts these days. Here I have written a moss
texture, in combination with the copy and slight transform of the object,
based on moss I have seen in the forests around my home. What do you think?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Moss_test.jpg' (135 KB)
Preview of image 'Moss_test.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot escreveu:
> What do you think?
I think it's... mossy! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Ok. I'm active on different fronts these days. Here I have written a moss
> texture, in combination with the copy and slight transform of the object,
> based on moss I have seen in the forests around my home. What do you think?
>
> Thomas
I think it needs arms and legs (looks like a square body with a head) .. heh
heh...
But seriously...
Looks quite nice, especially the dried-up areas contrasted with the more
greenish ones. I'm intrigued by the copy-and-transform thing you did. Am I
correct in assuming that a duplicate copy of the object has been translated
slightly upward and made somewhat transparent? That's what my eyes tell me,
although the effect is very subtle.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> schreef in bericht
news:web.4941751447a82dd178dcad930@news.povray.org...
>
> Looks quite nice, especially the dried-up areas contrasted with the more
> greenish ones. I'm intrigued by the copy-and-transform thing you did. Am I
> correct in assuming that a duplicate copy of the object has been
> translated
> slightly upward and made somewhat transparent? That's what my eyes tell
> me,
> although the effect is very subtle.
>
Yes, that is exactly what I did. The lens shape at the back is just one copy
of the basic shape, slightly translated upwards; the height_field in front
consists of three instances: (1) a basic shape, (2) a "lower moss" shape
very slightly scaled up, (3) a semi-tranparant "upper moss" translated very
slightly upwards. Maybe a bit primitive, but it works quite well I guess.
You can also scale the basic shape a tiny bit of course, or translate it
around to get different effects. The texture is not meant for really close
up of course, but for viewing at some distance it is allright. A slight
drawback of this technique is that rendering with radiosity is rather slow.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
> >
> > Am I correct in assuming that a duplicate copy of the object has been
> > translated slightly upward and made somewhat transparent? That's what my
> > eyes tell me, although the effect is very subtle.
> >
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I did.
A very intriguing idea, one that I will have to experiment with. I'm even more
surprised now that you were able to get those moist/dry areas (looking nicely
interspersed) by simply using the technique you mentioned. I suppose that has a
lot to do with the HF(?) surface shape.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> Ok. I'm active on different fronts these days. Here I have written a moss
> texture, in combination with the copy and slight transform of the object,
> based on moss I have seen in the forests around my home. What do you think?
>
> Thomas
It looks very convincing.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
news:web.49432f1547a82dd178dcad930@news.povray.org...
>
> A very intriguing idea, one that I will have to experiment with. I'm even
> more
> surprised now that you were able to get those moist/dry areas (looking
> nicely
> interspersed) by simply using the technique you mentioned. I suppose that
> has a
> lot to do with the HF(?) surface shape.
>
Yes, the shape of the object really controls how the result will look. I
probably can finetune this more however, and maybe discard some of the
manipulations.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"SharkD" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.4943385847a82dd1ba2bd12d0@news.povray.org...
>
> It looks very convincing.
>
Yes, I was rather surprised at the result myself. The size of the "moss" is
controlled by the frequency parameter, so it is possible to enlarge or
decrease the aspect of the plants.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is I believe, an improved version. By adding the substrate texture to
the basal moss and by using two texture maps (one for the basal moss, one
for the top moss, with an additional transparant component) I have brought
back the necessary instances of the object to two instead of three, the
second one slightly translated upwards.
By playing with the texture map settings it is possible to influence subtly
the aspect of the moss and the presence of bare surfaces.
Next stage is wrapping this up into a macro.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Moss_test_2.jpg' (134 KB)
Preview of image 'Moss_test_2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> This is I believe, an improved version.
Ooh, that's really nice. Much improved, too. Looks like actual 'physical' moss
now. Impressive. (I would have tinkered around endlessly with isosurfaces and
textures to get such a result. No need to!) Looking forward to the macro.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
