 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Florian Siegmund" <flo### [at] gmx at> schreef in bericht
news:web.4945442b619c0ff365a1cfee0@news.povray.org...
> You could try to use my rainbow include file. I wrote it some time ago,
> but
> until now, nobody was really interested in it yet. This include file
> creates a
> more physically correct rainbow with eiter POV-Ray's rainbow feature or
> the
> media feature and renders acceptably fast, I guess. Here's the link:
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.scene-files/attachment/<web.438d9f95c0a56753b05a49370@news.povray.org>/rainbow.z
> ip?ttop=287937&toff=150
>
I have had it on my list for testing for a long time.... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have done a few test renders with your include file. Your model appears
more accurate than mine, as I just threw the colors in at regular intervals.
Rendering took about 10 times longer to render than my method using the
scene provided, which is probably because I made the changes internally
rather than in SDL. My changes were to scattering rather than emission
media, which increases the render times many times when there is complex
geometry in the scene due to shadow tests, but is relatively fast without
many objects in the scene.
Mike
"Florian Siegmund" <flo### [at] gmxat> wrote in message
news:web.49459cdf619c0ff365a1cfee0@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> Your instructions don't seem to say how to get a rainbow to appear. They
>> just seem to describe the options for tailoring it once you get to see
>> it.
>> Do you have a simple scene file to serve as an example for getting the
>> default one to appear?
>>
>> The include file seems to add a couple of spheres to the scene, but I
>> placed
>> a camera and a light source at the default location specified in the
>> include
>> file and got a black screen. I changed the background to white and got a
>> white screen, so I guess it needs something specific in the scene file to
>> make the rainbow visible.
>>
>> BTW. You shouldn't necessarily be discouraged by a lack of feedback. The
>> POV-Ray object collection has had over 20,000 downloads since it started
>> a
>> year ago, but there's been very little feedback.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris B.
>
> Sorry, that was my fault. Here's a simple scene file with nothing but a
> plane,
> light and the rainbow. Don't bother when the scene takes some time to
> parse.
> This is because the include file is nothing else than a 'rainbow
> raytracer'
> which is calculating the reflection, rafraction and dispersion of light
> rays in
> a water droplet. The couple of spheres you mentioned is just the container
> object for the media. Don't bother your head about this :)
>
> So here's a little bit of code for you:
>
> // only the following two identifiers declared before including
> // the "rainbow.inc" file are really necessary to see the rainbow
> #declare camera_location = <0, 3, 0>;
> #declare rb_light_location = <500, 50, -500>;
>
> #declare rb_light_c = rgb <1, 1, 1>; // a color to be multiplied
> // with the rainbow color bands
> // (color of the virtual light source which is casting the rainbow)
>
> camera {
> location camera_location // this setting is obligatory for getting
> // a correct result
> look_at <0, 3, 1>
> angle 30
> }
>
> light_source {rb_light_location color rb_light_c} // not really
> necessary,
> // because the rainbow media is emitting, not scattering
>
> plane {y, 0 pigment {color rgb 1}}
>
> background {color rgb <0.01, 0.05, 0.15>}
>
> // the following lines are just for playing around with and testing speed
> and
> // quality of the resulting image
> #declare secondary_rb = on;
> #declare rb_distance = 40;
> #declare rb_brightness = 0.75;
> #declare rb_type = 2; // slower but more accurate than type 1
> // (type 1 is very good for testing purposes, because it renders really
> fast!)
> #declare rb_spectrum_samples = 50; // number of samples in the wave
> spectrum
> #declare rb_intervals = 20; // number of color maps put together
> // to create the rainbow
> #declare rb_c_map_samples = 80; // samples in a single color map
> #declare rb_area_light_angle = 0.15; // faking an area light source for
> // obtaining a smooth rainbow
> #declare rb_area_light_samples = 10;
>
> #include "rainbow.inc"
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Hough [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom]
> Took 10 hours 30 minutes to render this which is way too long.
Kids!
I remember when you could render a few simple spheres, and use the
pixels appearing on screen as a rather accurate stopwatch!
And a render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday :)
(Hmm... I think I'll use that as my new sig!)
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I remember when you could render a few simple spheres, and use the
> pixels appearing on screen as a rather accurate stopwatch!
10:45:33 Rendering line 103 of 768, 1469 supersamples, 25893 rad. samples
Old scene, never before rendered for some mystical reason. And yes, that
is running on 2,3GHz A64 with enough RAM, so it's not exactly 286-time
any more...
> And a render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
> birthday :)
Well, I have almost a year to cover that, so no problem!
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I meant too long considering it was a test scene. I started out with
POV-Ray for DOS on a 166mhz system, so I appreciate the processing power
available these days.
I did this final render of this scene and wasn't going to post it because I
wasn't happy with it. It took 6d 9h 27m to render at 1920x1200.
-Mike
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:BCF7900EDDC2420A8E99F8E588279E1B@HomePC...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Hough [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom]
>> Took 10 hours 30 minutes to render this which is way too long.
>
> Kids!
>
> I remember when you could render a few simple spheres, and use the
> pixels appearing on screen as a rather accurate stopwatch!
>
> And a render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
> birthday :)
>
> (Hmm... I think I'll use that as my new sig!)
>
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
>
> A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
> birthday.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rainbow2.jpg' (200 KB)
Preview of image 'rainbow2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough nous illumina en ce 2008-12-22 04:07 -->
> Well, I meant too long considering it was a test scene. I started out with
> POV-Ray for DOS on a 166mhz system, so I appreciate the processing power
> available these days.
>
> I did this final render of this scene and wasn't going to post it because I
> wasn't happy with it. It took 6d 9h 27m to render at 1920x1200.
>
> -Mike
>
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:BCF7900EDDC2420A8E99F8E588279E1B@HomePC...
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Hough [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom]
>>> Took 10 hours 30 minutes to render this which is way too long.
>> Kids!
>>
>> I remember when you could render a few simple spheres, and use the
>> pixels appearing on screen as a rather accurate stopwatch!
>>
>> And a render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
>> birthday :)
>>
>> (Hmm... I think I'll use that as my new sig!)
>>
>> ...Ben Chambers
>> www.pacificwebguy.com
>>
>> A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
>> birthday.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Still a problem: the two arches are NOT coventrical!
Apart from that, nice.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Database administrators do it with their relations
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Dec-08 10:07, Mike Hough wrote:
> Well, I meant too long considering it was a test scene. I started out with
> POV-Ray for DOS on a 166mhz system, so I appreciate the processing power
> available these days.
>
> I did this final render of this scene and wasn't going to post it because I
> wasn't happy with it. It took 6d 9h 27m to render at 1920x1200.
I think the inner should be brighter than the outer. Also I have this
feeling that the angles are not completely right nor does it match the
position of the sun. If you take a line from the sun through the eye of
the observer then the line from any point of a certain color on the
rainbow to the eye will make a constant (and universal) angle to that
sun-eye line. If this makes sense to you. ;) The same holds for the
secondary rainbow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice, but there seem to be shadowy *reflections* of mountains in the plane
of the rainbow. What are those?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
They are the shadows of the mountains blocking the light from hitting the
media "clouds". I did not notice them until around day 3. Only solution
would be more samples.
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message
news:4951ee24$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Nice, but there seem to be shadowy *reflections* of mountains in the plane
> of the rainbow. What are those?
>
> Thomas
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Take a glance at this one...
The image was rendered within one week on a Pentium DualCore 3.6Ghz with 2GB
RAM; I don't know the exact time it took to render though, because I stopped
and continued tracing several times. For this image, I used Jaime Vives
Piqueres' 'Project Tierra' landscape include files and my own ones for the
rainbow, and I'm quite happy with the result. Still I'm using emitting media
rather than scattering one, because it renders faster and my include file
contains the possibility to 'project' a pattern onto the rainbow, e.g. clouds,
to get the illusion of a 'broken' rainbow (not used in this image, but
possible, if someone liked to use this feature).
Mike, your rainbow seems a little bit too 'perfect' to me, like it was an
illustration taken from a fairy tale book; most of all because of the powerful
colors. Maybe this is your aim, because the viewer still gets a very special
impression in this case, I don't know. If you wanted to achieve that, you are
going into the right direction (yes, I like the image; put a crystal dragon
into the scene and I would like it even more!) But for getting an image with a
more realistic look, you should work on the colors and angles of the rainbow
once more. One more thing to say, I wonder about your rendering times... what
is it that kills your processor speed, the rainbow media or the landscape
isosurface? By default, my rainbow media only takes 2 media intervals. There is
no need of taking more intervals in normal cases, beacause I tweaked the density
function in a way so that it renders nearly like the inbuilt 'fog' feature in
pov-ray (assuming that reflecting water droplets are distributed constantly
along the viewing ray). Hope this helps a little bit.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'tierra_ls_01.jpg' (379 KB)
Preview of image 'tierra_ls_01.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
