 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Waterlilies again, this time I increased the bump map on the leaves, added
some gradients to the flowers and added reflectivity to the water. This one
uses radiosity so it took 60 times longer to render.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'panama_pacific.jpg' (254 KB)
Preview of image 'panama_pacific.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Waterlilies again, this time I increased the bump map on the leaves, added
> some gradients to the flowers and added reflectivity to the water. This one
> uses radiosity so it took 60 times longer to render.
>
> Mike
The image is lacking something... sharks with lasers I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
...
...
...
> The image is lacking something... sharks with lasers I think.
Also, specular highlights on the water. I suspect the computation of the
specular effect is closely tied to the computation of the surface color. This
is something that has been an issue for me recently, while trying to do
realistic glass and liquid scenes. If you use a transmit value of 1.0, the
specular effect seems to become completely transparent, along with the surface
color.
I also think the water could use more reflectivity, but that is just me :)
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> Waterlilies again, this time I increased the bump map on the leaves, added
> some gradients to the flowers and added reflectivity to the water. This one
> uses radiosity so it took 60 times longer to render.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
You are starting to get some nice delicate details in there. The
gradients on the flower is great. The actual modelling of the flower
looks a bit stiff.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
