 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ivory? Not sure (I've never seen real ivory in my life I guess), but I
think it makes a good texture for a die either way.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ssltdie_.png' (165 KB)
Preview of image 'ssltdie_.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Ivory? Not sure (I've never seen real ivory in my life I guess), but I
> think it makes a good texture for a die either way.
That looks pretty close. I compared your image to some real ivory (fairly old,
brought back from Africa in the 1950's by some missionaries) and the actual
ivory is slightly less brown. Comparing the sub-surface light feature I'd say
it's also very close but possibly just a little exaggerated. I'm sure there are
natural variations though. That is the best-looking die I've seen. It would make
a great demo scene.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/22/2011 12:57 PM, clipka wrote:
> Ivory? Not sure (I've never seen real ivory in my life I guess), but I
> think it makes a good texture for a die either way.
not too bad! the color is damn near spot on ... i've also been playing
with the changes you've checked in, and it has a better feel (the tuning
that is) ... nice job :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Ivory? Not sure (I've never seen real ivory in my life I guess), but I
> think it makes a good texture for a die either way.
Yes, very convincing! When do we get to play?
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.02.2011 19:56, schrieb Dave Blandston:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Ivory? Not sure (I've never seen real ivory in my life I guess), but I
>> think it makes a good texture for a die either way.
>
> That looks pretty close. I compared your image to some real ivory (fairly old,
> brought back from Africa in the 1950's by some missionaries) and the actual
> ivory is slightly less brown. Comparing the sub-surface light feature I'd say
> it's also very close but possibly just a little exaggerated. I'm sure there are
> natural variations though.
How about this one?
> That is the best-looking die I've seen. It would make
> a great demo scene.
Well, depends; a demo /image/, yes - but for a demo /scene/, it's not
really as simple as it looks.
The die is actually an isosurface I had modelled earlier for a different
scene; DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME WITH SSLT! Kudos to Kevin Loney, Jaap
Frank & Tor Olav Kristensen for their isosurface approximator include
file, which cut down the rendering time by a guesstimated 98-99% (!) to
"only" 3.5 hours.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ssltdie_.png' (147 KB)
Preview of image 'ssltdie_.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For comparison, a version without subsurface scattering.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ssltdie_.png' (120 KB)
Preview of image 'ssltdie_.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> How about this one?
Perfect!
The with/without comparison is very interesting as well.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/22/2011 08:40 PM, clipka wrote:
> The die is actually an isosurface I had modelled earlier for a different
> scene; DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME WITH SSLT! Kudos to Kevin Loney, Jaap
> Frank & Tor Olav Kristensen for their isosurface approximator include
> file, which cut down the rendering time by a guesstimated 98-99% (!) to
> "only" 3.5 hours.
no kidding ... why is that with isosurfaces the render times skyrocket
(besides the obvious isosurface slow downs) ... i tried to make coral
material for my mandel goodie and after overnight on 13% progress ...my
guess is that up until now that fairly simple objects have been used as
demo. you guys are getting fairly decent times with mesh objects am i
correct? iso's are just a more complicated surface to consider
(sslt-wise) is that the reason? btw: did that test with RC3 bits ...
should i expect similar performance with updated method?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> you guys are getting fairly decent times with mesh objects am i
> correct? iso's are just a more complicated surface to consider
> (sslt-wise) is that the reason?
Yes, meshes typically render very quickly. Isosurfaces are always going to be
slow, there's so much math going on in there... and with transparency or SSLT,
yikes, that could be a real rendering-time nightmare.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/02/2011 6:21 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Yes, meshes typically render very quickly.
I second that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
