Had not thought about that but I think you are right about the radiosity 
interacting with the box containing the media. This was with version 3.6.


"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.495e239597e560639fcd4c570@news.povray.org...
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Something odd happened with the snow on the volcano. It is a slope 
>> dependent
>> texture and the radiosity makes it look like it is separate from the rest 
>> of
>> the heightfield. I like how the smoke looks though.
>
> To me it looks as if we're seeing the outline of the media container (a 
> box,
> right?)
>
> What POV version are you using? 3.7 seems to have problems with the combo 
> of
> media and radiosity.
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something odd happened with the snow on the volcano. It is a slope dependent
> texture and the radiosity makes it look like it is separate from the rest of
> the heightfield. I like how the smoke looks though.

That's one hell of an impressive scene nonetheless!

I'd say the sky is still a bit too bright for just a moonlight...

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something odd happened with the snow on the volcano. It is a slope dependent
> texture and the radiosity makes it look like it is separate from the rest of
> the heightfield.

It looks remarkably like a wet T-shirt.

Just render Wyoming's Grand Teton Mountains with the same technique, and you're
all set!

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I'd say the sky is still a bit too bright for just a moonlight...

1. That depends on how adjusted your eyes are to the dark, or the sensitivity of
the film/CCD, or the time of the exposure.

2. It may not be "just" moonlight.  A full moon so close to the horizon isn't
far behind sunset (or ahead of sunrise), so there may still be a bit of
twilight.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something odd happened with the snow on the volcano. It is a slope dependent
> texture and the radiosity makes it look like it is separate from the rest of
> the heightfield. I like how the smoke looks though.

Impressive!  I think the lighting and tonal qualities are *just right*--the way
our eyes would adjust to such a scene. The smoke is wonderfully backlit. A nice
design overall.

Yeah, there *is* a 3.6.1 problem with radiosity and media-in-an-object; the
media generates radiosity lighting on objects *outside* the box, but not inside
it. I can't really tell if that's your snow problem, though. Your box appears to
be intersecting the mountain, so there's bound to be a different look in that
area, just from the radiosity gaffe.

Here's a goofball idea for a workaround: Make a duplicate of the mountain HF,
translate it slightly upward, and difference-it from the box. That will create
a thin 'no-media' zone between box and visible HF, which should correct any rad
problems there.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-01-02 18:36 -->
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> I'd say the sky is still a bit too bright for just a moonlight...
> 
> 1. That depends on how adjusted your eyes are to the dark, or the sensitivity of
> the film/CCD, or the time of the exposure.
> 
> 2. It may not be "just" moonlight.  A full moon so close to the horizon isn't
> far behind sunset (or ahead of sunrise), so there may still be a bit of
> twilight.
> 
Not in a tropical setting. In those areas, the twilight last only minutes, at 
most. The moon should be almost touching the horizon to have some twilight.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has
set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the
banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-01-02 18:36 -->
> > "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I'd say the sky is still a bit too bright for just a moonlight...
> > 2. It may not be "just" moonlight.  A full moon so close to the horizon isn't
> > far behind sunset (or ahead of sunrise), so there may still be a bit of
> > twilight.
> >
> Not in a tropical setting. In those areas, the twilight last only minutes, at
> most. The moon should be almost touching the horizon to have some twilight.

Good catch! :)

Indeed, here in Brazil, moonlight really means the light from the moon alone.  I
heard that in London and going upper, the sun is in the sky even in the late
hours but only now came to realize it'd influence moonlight like this... :P

somehow, I guess I'll never listen to the Moonlight Sonata in the same light
again... oh, bad pun! :P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous illumina en ce 2009-01-04 08:22 -->
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-01-02 18:36 -->
>>> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> I'd say the sky is still a bit too bright for just a moonlight...
>>> 2. It may not be "just" moonlight.  A full moon so close to the horizon isn't
>>> far behind sunset (or ahead of sunrise), so there may still be a bit of
>>> twilight.
>>>
>> Not in a tropical setting. In those areas, the twilight last only minutes, at
>> most. The moon should be almost touching the horizon to have some twilight.
> 
> Good catch! :)
> 
> Indeed, here in Brazil, moonlight really means the light from the moon alone.  I
> heard that in London and going upper, the sun is in the sky even in the late
> hours but only now came to realize it'd influence moonlight like this... :P
> 
> somehow, I guess I'll never listen to the Moonlight Sonata in the same light
> again... oh, bad pun! :P
> 
> 
In temperate regions, the twilight can last over 2 hours, especialy around the 
summer solstice. And you don't need to go as north as London, In Montreal, 
Québec, around 46 degree North, and twilight can last that much.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later.
Benjamin Franklin

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-01-02 18:36 -->
> >
> > 2. It may not be "just" moonlight.  A full moon so close to the horizon isn't
> > far behind sunset (or ahead of sunrise), so there may still be a bit of
> > twilight.
> >
> Not in a tropical setting. In those areas, the twilight last only minutes, at
> most. The moon should be almost touching the horizon to have some twilight.


backdrop plenty of times, with enough hills to make sure that the Moon is well
away from the horizon.

Also observe that in Mike's moonscape, the Moon appears to be only 2, maybe 3
degrees above the horizon.

Post a reply to this message

Among other things, Alain saw fit to write:

> Not in a tropical setting. In those areas, the twilight last only minutes,
> at most. The moon should be almost touching the horizon to have some
> twilight.

But it lasts minutes because the sun moves in an almost vertical direction,
so it gets farther from the horizon sooner... or so I understand.

What I mean is, whether you have twilight or not, would be determined by the
position of the sun (and full moon) with respect to the horizon, not by the
time it took to reach that position. So once you have a position in a
picture, it doesn't matter if it's in the tropics or in the poles (except
for the possible effects of temperature, moisture, dust...).

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message