 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi All:
I was recently playing with Eagle3D, trying to enhance the texturing and
lighting. Eagle3D comes with an extensive and very good library of
electronic parts, and it does a very good job translating an Eagle board
into a POV-Ray scene, but the default setup is somewhat boring, and the
textures of most components are a bit simplistic.
I changed the confusing lights setup by a simple HDRI map, then enhanced
the textures of the parts used on this example board (modsmega.brd), and the
result was really nice.
Nice, but a bit lifeless, so I modeled a spider with Wings3d and placed
it there. It still needs more work, specially the head part... I modeled it
without looking closely to real spiders, as I wanted something quick just to
test the idea.
Regards,
P.S.: MegaPOV 1.2.1, 10h at 1600x1200, then resized down to 800x600 to clean
DOF artifacts.
P.S.S.: Focal Blur Wars can start now... ;)
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'modsmega-04.jpg' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'modsmega-04.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignorancia org> schreef in bericht
news:4a8a63bb@news.povray.org...
> Nice, but a bit lifeless, so I modeled a spider with Wings3d and
> placed
> it there. It still needs more work, specially the head part... I modeled
> it
> without looking closely to real spiders, as I wanted something quick just
> to
> test the idea.
That's exactly what computer bugs look like! :-)
> P.S.S.: Focal Blur Wars can start now... ;)
Lol! No need. Imo, it is really functional here... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> Nice, but a bit lifeless, so I modeled a spider with Wings3d and
> placed
> it there. It still needs more work, specially the head part... I modeled it
> without looking closely to real spiders, as I wanted something quick
> just to
> test the idea.
Neat :) A long time ago I was working on a library of CSG objects that
would be electronic components. This might inspire me to go back to
working on that CSG library again.
I like the spider, btw, very cute. No need for absolute accuracy unless
your goal was total photorealism.
>
> P.S.S.: Focal Blur Wars can start now... ;)
>
lol. I was wondering if someone would say something ;)
Good use of DOF, though, the subject is entirely sharp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a8a833f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Good use of DOF, though, the subject is entirely sharp.
That's why it works here :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Excellent work!
Materials must be more dull though for realism, both plastic and also,
to some degree, metal ones.
DOF needs even more samples I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres a écrit :
> Hi All:
>
> I was recently playing with Eagle3D, trying to enhance the
> texturing and
> lighting. Eagle3D comes with an extensive and very good library of
> electronic parts, and it does a very good job translating an Eagle board
> into a POV-Ray scene, but the default setup is somewhat boring, and the
> textures of most components are a bit simplistic.
>
> I changed the confusing lights setup by a simple HDRI map, then
> enhanced
> the textures of the parts used on this example board (modsmega.brd), and
> the
> result was really nice.
>
> Nice, but a bit lifeless, so I modeled a spider with Wings3d and
> placed
> it there. It still needs more work, specially the head part... I modeled it
> without looking closely to real spiders, as I wanted something quick
> just to
> test the idea.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> P.S.: MegaPOV 1.2.1, 10h at 1600x1200, then resized down to 800x600 to
> clean
> DOF artifacts.
>
> P.S.S.: Focal Blur Wars can start now... ;)
>
> --
> Jaime
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
This is a case where a relatively strong DoF does a good job. It
emphasises that the scale is rather small. Good macrophotography effect.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Nice, but a bit lifeless, so I modeled a spider with Wings3d and placed
> it there. It still needs more work, specially the head part... I modeled it
> without looking closely to real spiders, as I wanted something quick just to
> test the idea.
I make a point of NOT looking closely at spiders! :-p They give me the creeps.
Your's is just right, I wouldn't change a thing!!!!! Any more realistic, and
I'll have nightmares.
Beautiful image.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth wrote:
> I make a point of NOT looking closely at spiders! :-p They give me the creeps.
> Your's is just right, I wouldn't change a thing!!!!! Any more realistic, and
> I'll have nightmares.
>
> Beautiful image.
How can you feel creeped out by this cutie? ;)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2438/3598598585_54393226fc_o.jpg
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a8bf462$1@news.povray.org...
>
> How can you feel creeped out by this cutie? ;)
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2438/3598598585_54393226fc_o.jpg
It looks hungry.....
Thomas
PS Good shot by the way :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> PS Good shot by the way :-)
>
Hehe, Thanks :) Given all the criticism received as of late ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
> Hi All:
>
> I was recently playing with Eagle3D, trying to enhance the texturing and
> lighting. Eagle3D comes with an extensive and very good library of
> electronic parts, and it does a very good job translating an Eagle board
> into a POV-Ray scene, but the default setup is somewhat boring, and the
> textures of most components are a bit simplistic.
Wow!
As I am the author of Eagle3D (and I know that my
lightning/texturing/...) is far from being nice I really would like to
know what you changed (besides a lot more reflections) to get this result.
--
Matthias Weißer
mat### [at] matweide
http://www.matwei.de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot escribió:
> That's exactly what computer bugs look like! :-)
But has anyone ever seen them actually? :)
Seriously now, I'm not sure if a spider qualifies as a bug... if it has
the same meaning as the spanish word "bicho", it should cover almost
anything disgusting that looks like an insect.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escribió:
> Neat :) A long time ago I was working on a library of CSG objects that
> would be electronic components. This might inspire me to go back to
> working on that CSG library again.
Well, I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like Eagle3D has already a
very good library... perhaps it can be used without an Eagle board file,
just using manually the includes on your POV scenes. Anyhow, I also
understand most POV users (including myself), love reinventing the wheel
just for the fun of it...
> I like the spider, btw, very cute. No need for absolute accuracy unless
> your goal was total photorealism.
Well, realism is always my goal, but sometimes I'm too lazy to achieve it.
In this case, I discovered that modeling insects with Wings3D is much easier
than I thought... so I will try to get it more close to a real spider
(excluding hair, of course).
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
news:4a8cfa0e@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> That's exactly what computer bugs look like! :-)
>
> But has anyone ever seen them actually? :)
>
> Seriously now, I'm not sure if a spider qualifies as a bug... if it has
> the same meaning as the spanish word "bicho", it should cover almost
> anything disgusting that looks like an insect.
I think that bug and bicho are more or less synonymous in their meaning, but
biologically spiders are not insects (6 legs) but arthropods (8 legs).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escribió:
> Excellent work!
Thanks!
> Materials must be more dull though for realism, both plastic and also, to
> some degree, metal ones.
>
Yeah... I think I abused of reflections a bit. :)
> DOF needs even more samples I guess.
Yes, it only has 35 samples... mostly because the reflections are all
blurred with 24 layers, and DOF is really slow with these.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:4a8c2043$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>
>> PS Good shot by the way :-)
>
> Hehe, Thanks :) Given all the criticism received as of late ;)
Yeah... but here it works perfectly ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain escribió:
> This is a case where a relatively strong DoF does a good job. It
> emphasises that the scale is rather small. Good macrophotography effect.
Thanks! Indeed, I was lucky and only needed 3 attempts to find the correct
amount of aperture...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth escribió:
> I make a point of NOT looking closely at spiders! :-p They give me the
> creeps.
Well, I too don't like confronting insects/spiders in RL, but I can handle
pictures of them without any problem... :)
> Your's is just right, I wouldn't change a thing!!!!! Any more realistic,
> and I'll have nightmares.
Then better don't look at my next WIP... ;)
> Beautiful image.
Thanks!
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
>> DOF needs even more samples I guess.
>
> Yes, it only has 35 samples... mostly because the reflections are all
> blurred with 24 layers, and DOF is really slow with these.
You know that with DOF active you can get away with far less layers?
(provided you're using micro-, not macronormals)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Mike Raiford escribió:
>> Neat :) A long time ago I was working on a library of CSG objects that
>> would be electronic components. This might inspire me to go back to
>> working on that CSG library again.
>
> Well, I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like Eagle3D has already a
> very good library... perhaps it can be used without an Eagle board file,
> just using manually the includes on your POV scenes. Anyhow, I also
> understand most POV users (including myself), love reinventing the wheel
> just for the fun of it...
>
Yep! Absolutely ;) I'm very tempted to play with Eagle and Eagle3D now
... maybe this weekend. But, there's a certain amount of enjoyment in
doing all of the modeling on your own. I had actually created a texture
macro that would generate the bands for a resistor, based on it's value,
and a couple other parameters (tolerance, etc...)
>> I like the spider, btw, very cute. No need for absolute accuracy
>> unless your goal was total photorealism.
>
> Well, realism is always my goal, but sometimes I'm too lazy to achieve
> it.
> In this case, I discovered that modeling insects with Wings3D is much
> easier
> than I thought... so I will try to get it more close to a real spider
> (excluding hair, of course).
Ah, Can't wait to see it :) As always, you produce some of the most
stunning images!
> --
> Jaime
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other things, Jaime Vives Piqueres saw fit to write:
> Seriously now, I'm not sure if a spider qualifies as a bug... if it has
> the same meaning as the spanish word "bicho", it should cover almost
> anything disgusting that looks like an insect.
"Bug" can mean "bicho", which generally include spiders. But "bug" can also
mean "chinche", which is a particular kind of insect (Hemiptera).
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Matthias Weisser escribió:
> Wow!
Thanks!
> As I am the author of Eagle3D
Many thanks for it: I had a lot of fun playing with it!
As I said, I'm not an engineer, but looks like a very good addition for
Eagle to me. As far as I can tell, the geometry problem is very well solved,
but most of the textures are too simplistic (tough as usual, this is enough
for most users, from what I read on forums).
As for my changes to your code, this is what I did:
+ replace the light sources by an HDRI-mapped sphere
+ use radiosity and change default finish to ambient 0
+ add reflections almost everywhere, reduce saturation on some colors
+ add some focal blur
The main problem I found is that, except for a few common textures, the
component textures have to be searched inside the include files... not easy
when you have no idea what kind of part you are looking at.
Perhaps you could centralize all the textures on a specific include file,
and provide more "common" textures, so people adding parts to the library
could use textures from there, or add new ones if needed. Ideally, I will
avoid declaring textures directly inside the component macros.
Indeed, I just started to write a quick tutorial about these changes,
because some spanish users of Eagle3D asked me to do it. The spanish version
is almost finished, then I will translate it for the english version of my
site... I will keep you updated.
Regards,
P.S.: Here are some more shots, without the bug:
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-02.jpg
http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-03.jpg
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escribió:
> Yep! Absolutely ;) I'm very tempted to play with Eagle and Eagle3D now
> ... maybe this weekend. But, there's a certain amount of enjoyment in
> doing all of the modeling on your own. I had actually created a texture
> macro that would generate the bands for a resistor, based on it's value,
> and a couple other parameters (tolerance, etc...)
Perhaps Eagle/Eagle3D can be of help for you, because I think it has a way
to expand the existing components library, via macros. This will free you
from modeling the board, and all the programming involved to have the
components properly placed, so you can focus on just modeling components.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escribió:
> You know that with DOF active you can get away with far less layers?
> (provided you're using micro-, not macronormals)
Yes, I know, but they are macro-normals in this case. I alternate between
both methods for no apparent reason: I just can't decide which method is
better, and each one seems to fit better certain situations... Most of the
time, I just try both and see which one works best for that shape/pigment.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I think that bug and bicho are more or less synonymous in their meaning, but
> biologically spiders are not insects (6 legs) but arthropods (8 legs).
I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an insect. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres schrieb:
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
This one looks /freakily/ realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I think that bug and bicho are more or less synonymous in their
>> meaning, but biologically spiders are not insects (6 legs) but
>> arthropods (8 legs).
>
> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an
> insect. :-)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather,
tertiary) meaning. (And I just checked, to find that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug agrees with me.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an
>> insect. :-)
>
> I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather,
> tertiary) meaning.
I meant, entomologists won't use the word in a technical conversation - they
will use the term "insect" or "arachnid" or whatever is appropriate.
Doctors, however, will refer to infectious microbes as "bugs" to distinguish
them from non-infectious microbes. (Just like someone programming computers
won't refer to a program correctly following specs that differ from what the
customer actually wanted "a bug", even if the customers might call it that.)
Of course informally a "bug" is a small insect-like creature.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
Hey, no passing photographs for rendered images. That's cheating!
Seriously, though, that's superbly photorealistic. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>>> I'm also pretty sure that technically, a "bug" means a germ, not an
>>> insect. :-)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you're wrong - except as a secondary (or, rather,
>> tertiary) meaning.
>
> I meant, entomologists won't use the word in a technical conversation -
> they will use the term "insect" or "arachnid" or whatever is
> appropriate. Doctors, however, will refer to infectious microbes as
> "bugs" to distinguish them from non-infectious microbes. (Just like
> someone programming computers won't refer to a program correctly
> following specs that differ from what the customer actually wanted "a
> bug", even if the customers might call it that.)
>
> Of course informally a "bug" is a small insect-like creature.
>
The true bugs are hemiptera, IIRC, and if I can spell. Been a long time
since I've had to think about proper bug terms.
Rich
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
news:4a8d879f@news.povray.org...
> P.S.: Here are some more shots, without the bug:
>
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-02.jpg
> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-03.jpg
>
Good gracious! I am repeating others, but if I didn't know better, I would
say that these were photographs.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot schrieb:
>> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-01.jpg
>> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-02.jpg
>> http://www.ignorancia.org/uploads/experiments/eagle3d/wips/modsmega-03.jpg
>>
>
> Good gracious! I am repeating others, but if I didn't know better, I would
> say that these were photographs.
I wouldn't go /that/ far: Some edges telltale the CG origin because they
lack beveling (especially the grey box headers); and the close-ups all
suffer from too clean reflection and the total absence of dirt.
But still - incredible!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
