On 03/03/2011 8:39 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:

>> Nice image have you tried using a back light?
>>
>
> not until now I hadn't ... ran a low samples example (light source and
> hdr flipped y*180) ... interesting effect, however looks like I'll need
> a whole different tune (reminds me of tuning IF stages in
> transmitter/receivers) ... maybe it's telling me that my settings
> weren't so hot to begin with. The translucency effect is more
> pronounced, almost to the point of practically being able to see through
> the material.

But you won't be able to according to my experiments.

> I can see that I have more experimenting ahead ... this
> stuff is fun and frustrating at the same time ;-)
>

It is too. Thanks Clipka.

> ha-ha ... and yikes this thread sure has generated a lot of bandwidth
> (i'm posting 55th message to this thread)

Soon: Oh! No! Not another SSLT.
Who is going to do a SSLT sphere on a chequered plane?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/3/2011 3:30 PM, Stephen wrote:

>
> Soon: Oh! No! Not another SSLT.
> Who is going to do a SSLT sphere on a chequered plane?
>

Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]

Post a reply to this message

On 3/3/2011 10:23 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]

I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....

Mosaic preview, 1920x1080, downsized. On final pass.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rip.jpg' (53 KB)

Preview of image 'rip.jpg'

On 03/04/2011 12:32 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 10:23 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]
> 
> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
> 
> Mosaic preview, 1920x1080, downsized. On final pass.

far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
tried the tiling pattern?

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling

Mirrored (at the mid-point) color/texture maps work best

Post a reply to this message

On 04/03/2011 4:32 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 10:23 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]
>
> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
>

LOL

> Mosaic preview, 1920x1080, downsized. On final pass.

Nice.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/03/2011 11:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 12:32 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 10:23 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]
>>
>> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
>>
>> Mosaic preview, 1920x1080, downsized. On final pass.
>
> far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
> tried the tiling pattern?
>

Not me. I'll probably wait until Bishop3D supports it after 3.7 is released.

> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling
>

It wasn't you who wrote that, was it?

May I suggest something like:

"For each pattern, each individual tile of the pattern has the same 
bevelling as the other tiles in that pattern, allowing regular caulking 
to be defined. For a pattern with N kind of tiles, the main 
colour/texture of the tiles are at x/N (with x going from 0 to N-1), and 
the extreme colour/texture caulk for these tiles are at (x+1)/N, the 
bevel covering the range between these two values.

Each tile has a side which is exactly one unit long. The tiles extend 
infinitely in the +y and -y directions and if no map is specified then a 
default grey map is used."

That may be wrong and an example would help as the maths is not easy for 
me to visulise.

(Everyone's a critic and you've done a power of good work on your own.)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/04/2011 07:54 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 11:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 03/04/2011 12:32 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2011 10:23 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Umm... [Looks around, whistles innocently ....]
>>>
>>> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
>>>
>>> Mosaic preview, 1920x1080, downsized. On final pass.
>>
>> far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
>> tried the tiling pattern?
>>
> 
> Not me. I'll probably wait until Bishop3D supports it after 3.7 is
> released.
> 
>> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling
>>
> 
> It wasn't you who wrote that, was it?

nope ... lifted straight out of the change log (developers narrative)

> 
> May I suggest something like:
> 
> "For each pattern, each individual tile of the pattern has the same
> bevelling as the other tiles in that pattern, allowing regular caulking
> to be defined. For a pattern with N kind of tiles, the main
> colour/texture of the tiles are at x/N (with x going from 0 to N-1), and
> the extreme colour/texture caulk for these tiles are at (x+1)/N, the
> bevel covering the range between these two values.
> 
> Each tile has a side which is exactly one unit long. The tiles extend
> infinitely in the +y and -y directions and if no map is specified then a
> default grey map is used."
> 
> That may be wrong and an example would help as the maths is not easy for
> me to visulise.
> 
> (Everyone's a critic and you've done a power of good work on your own.)
> 

no worries there Stephen ... towards the end of the doc adds I started
copping an attitude (several times almost walked away from it as I
didn't sign on to the project as a content "gardener") as I was
practically the only one doing anything. I just slammed it in, so I'll
work your changes into that passage ... btw: much better wording (proper
grammar etc)

Cheers

Post a reply to this message

On 3/4/2011 5:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
> far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
> tried the tiling pattern?
>
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling
>
> Mirrored (at the mid-point) color/texture maps work best

I have... and Pavement, too. Fun stuff. As I said before, lots of new 
stuff to play with. The tiling patterns will definitely add a new 
dimension to scenes that use strictly procedural textures. I like it.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....

Looks good!

Here's mine. Gratuitous sslt instead of your more subtle approach!

:)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rsocp_sslt01.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'rsocp_sslt01.jpg'

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/2011 5:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> >
> > far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
> > tried the tiling pattern?
> >
> > http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling
> >
> > Mirrored (at the mid-point) color/texture maps work best
>
> I have... and Pavement, too. Fun stuff. As I said before, lots of new
> stuff to play with. The tiling patterns will definitely add a new
> dimension to scenes that use strictly procedural textures. I like it.

Wow, this completely passed me by. Excellent, I must have a play!

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/4/2011 5:14 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > >
> > > far be it for me to buck tradition (checkered planes) but has anyone
> > > tried the tiling pattern?
> > >
> > > http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.5#Tiling
> > >
> > > Mirrored (at the mid-point) color/texture maps work best
> >
> > I have... and Pavement, too. Fun stuff. As I said before, lots of new
> > stuff to play with. The tiling patterns will definitely add a new
> > dimension to scenes that use strictly procedural textures. I like it.
>
> Wow, this completely passed me by. Excellent, I must have a play!

Well how about that, I missed this too.

What I also would've liked is a 2D crackle pattern.  There I times when I need a
2D version and a simple slice of 3D isn't quite the same.  I did try my hand at
coding this once with a little success, but unfortunately I'm not completely
adept at putting the code together for proper inclusion...

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
>
> Looks good!
>
> Here's mine. Gratuitous sslt instead of your more subtle approach!
>
> :)

Bill, this is beautiful in its minimalism, and the gratuitous SSLT works really
well here. Nice :)

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Final render:

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'chextest3.jpg' (203 KB)

Preview of image 'chextest3.jpg'

On 3/4/2011 7:59 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I'm not, NOT rendering SSLT checkered spheres over checkered planes....
>
> Looks good!
>
> Here's mine. Gratuitous sslt instead of your more subtle approach!
>
> :)

Ohhhhh... NICE. I like it :)

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.03.2011 22:30, schrieb Stephen:

> Who is going to do a SSLT sphere on a chequered plane?

Been there, done that ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/03/2011 12:52 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> no worries there Stephen ...

:-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/03/2011 1:59 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Here's mine. Gratuitous sslt instead of your more subtle approach!

Nice and as someone used to say at my old judo class. "A good big un 
always beats a good little un" B*gg*r the subtly. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/03/2011 10:32 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Final render:
>

Very nice.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/03/2011 2:06 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Thanks I'm running a render on my old dual core laptop. with the default
> values and samples 10 and aperture 0.400.
> It is rendering at 8 pps 2 hours into it an 17% done.

I don't think I try that again soon. It took 24 minutes less than a day 
and a half for 800 X 450 pixels.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Final render:

Nice!
Why is the reflection of the sphere not affected by the depth of field though?
Looks wrong to me...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/03/05 06:21, Roman Reiner a écrit :
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Final render:
>
> Nice!
> Why is the reflection of the sphere not affected by the depth of field though?
> Looks wrong to me...
>
>
>

Physicaly acurate.
The depth of field for the reflection is NOT it's visual location on the 
ground, but the full distance of the object-reflective surface-camera path.

Post process focal blur does it wrong as it ignore part of the effective 
distance.

You are probably to used to the post process inacurate results.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 03:50 PM, Stephen wrote:
> > With a bit of a back light.
> > I think I'll wait until the next RC before continuing.
> >
> cool subject choice ... i forget the artist but a dragon image was what
> brought me to povray. hey where you been coming up with the cool test
> objects ... bishop?

Okay, back on-subject with an SSLT dragon, work-in-progress. I'm not really
satisfied with the textures yet but it's getting there... I've posted the dragon
mesh over in povray.binaries.misc so others can give it a try.

So, when's that next RC coming??

Cheers,
Rob

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sslt_dragon_wip4.png' (733 KB)

Preview of image 'sslt_dragon_wip4.png'

"Robert McGregor" <rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> Okay, back on-subject with an SSLT dragon, work-in-progress. I'm not really
> satisfied with the textures yet but it's getting there... I've posted the dragon
> mesh over in povray.binaries.misc so others can give it a try.

Lovely! I should play with the textures too, I've been keeping it simple up till
now to get the hang of the effect.

> So, when's that next RC coming??

Quite!!

Post a reply to this message

I suppose I'll wait until RC4 to do more SSLT; it's a real pain having to use
slow layered textures for the pigments, and the SSLT/radiosity/emission
artifacts in RC3 drive me bonkers!

So, I'm calling this one done for now. Rendered in 17.5 hrs.

Cheers,
Rob

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sslt_dragon_final.png' (1129 KB)

Preview of image 'sslt_dragon_final.png'

On 03/06/2011 01:29 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> I suppose I'll wait until RC4 to do more SSLT; it's a real pain having to use
> slow layered textures for the pigments, and the SSLT/radiosity/emission
> artifacts in RC3 drive me bonkers!
> 
> So, I'm calling this one done for now. Rendered in 17.5 hrs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob

dang ... that's looking pretty good there Rob!

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:12:50 -0400, Jim Holsenback wrote:

> dang ... that's looking pretty good there Rob!

Very cool work, Rob.  This should be a sample image, or at least in the 
hall of fame.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/03/06 12:29, Robert McGregor a écrit :
> I suppose I'll wait until RC4 to do more SSLT; it's a real pain having to use
> slow layered textures for the pigments, and the SSLT/radiosity/emission
> artifacts in RC3 drive me bonkers!
>
> So, I'm calling this one done for now. Rendered in 17.5 hrs.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
>

There is no real need to use layered textures.

You can apply a pattern to SSLT. You just need to use a texture_map. The 
pigment don't realy mather.

box{-1 1 texture {agate texture_map{
[0 finish{subsurface{<25, 24, 22>, <0.007, 0.008, 0.009> }]
[1 finish{subsurface{<0.8, 0.3, 0.01>,<0.0021, 0.0025, 0.00946> } ]
	}
	scale 0.4
	}
interior{ior 1.43}
}

This gives an agate pattern that closely match the pigment.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/03/06 15:32, Alain a écrit :
> Le 2011/03/06 12:29, Robert McGregor a écrit :
>> I suppose I'll wait until RC4 to do more SSLT; it's a real pain having
>> to use
>> slow layered textures for the pigments, and the SSLT/radiosity/emission
>> artifacts in RC3 drive me bonkers!
>>
>> So, I'm calling this one done for now. Rendered in 17.5 hrs.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>>
>>
>
> There is no real need to use layered textures.
>
> You can apply a pattern to SSLT. You just need to use a texture_map. The
> pigment don't realy mather.
>
> box{-1 1 texture {agate texture_map{
> [0 finish{subsurface{<25, 24, 22>, <0.007, 0.008, 0.009> }]
> [1 finish{subsurface{<0.8, 0.3, 0.01>,<0.0021, 0.0025, 0.00946> } ]
> }
> scale 0.4
> }
> interior{ior 1.43}
> }
>
> This gives an agate pattern that closely match the pigment.
>
>
>
> Alain

Oups, missing closing braces in the finishes.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 06/03/2011 5:29 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> I suppose I'll wait until RC4 to do more SSLT; it's a real pain having to use
> slow layered textures for the pigments, and the SSLT/radiosity/emission
> artifacts in RC3 drive me bonkers!
>
> So, I'm calling this one done for now. Rendered in 17.5 hrs.
>

Nice, very nice. RC4 for me too and I had to buy a laptop stand with fan 
to cope with SSLT.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> There is no real need to use layered textures.
>
> You can apply a pattern to SSLT. You just need to use a texture_map. The
> pigment don't realy mather.
>
> box{-1 1 texture {agate texture_map{
> [0 finish{subsurface{<25, 24, 22>, <0.007, 0.008, 0.009> }]
> [1 finish{subsurface{<0.8, 0.3, 0.01>,<0.0021, 0.0025, 0.00946> } ]
>  }
>  scale 0.4
>  }
> interior{ior 1.43}
> }
>
> This gives an agate pattern that closely match the pigment.
>
> Alain

Thanks Alain, actually I've tried that approach and it's okay, but doesn't
really give the fine control over the look of the material that I want
artistically - those coefficients require too much hand-holding, trial & error,
and voodoo (for me anyway) to make them look "right."

With Christoph's new method of using pigments to color the scattering and
absorption it will be /so/ much easier to get a "right" result quickly. And
commenting out the subsurface component in a finish will (I assume) enable us to
do quick render tests of materials without waiting for all the subsurface
calculations. Which will also make it easy to render with-SSLT and without-SSLT
images for comparsion of the two techniques (as Christoph did with his ivory
die).

Cheers,
Rob

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.03.2011 19:17, schrieb Robert McGregor:

> So, when's that next RC coming??

It's being delayed a bit, unfortunately.

Post a reply to this message

Am 06.03.2011 21:32, schrieb Alain:

> There is no real need to use layered textures.
>
> You can apply a pattern to SSLT. You just need to use a texture_map. The
> pigment don't realy mather.
>
> box{-1 1 texture {agate texture_map{
> [0 finish{subsurface{<25, 24, 22>, <0.007, 0.008, 0.009> }]
> [1 finish{subsurface{<0.8, 0.3, 0.01>,<0.0021, 0.0025, 0.00946> } ]
> }
> scale 0.4
> }
> interior{ior 1.43}
> }
>
> This gives an agate pattern that closely match the pigment.

Be aware that this is even slower than layered textures, as POV-Ray will 
compute the subsurface effect twice - once for the 0 value, and once for 
the 1 value - to compute a weighted average of those two textures.

Post a reply to this message

>Robert McGregor  on date 05/03/2011 19:17 wrote:
> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
>> On 02/22/2011 03:50 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> With a bit of a back light.
>>> I think I'll wait until the next RC before continuing.
>>>
>> cool subject choice ... i forget the artist but a dragon image was what
>> brought me to povray. hey where you been coming up with the cool test
>> objects ... bishop?
>
> Okay, back on-subject with an SSLT dragon, work-in-progress. I'm not really
> satisfied with the textures yet but it's getting there... I've posted the dragon
> mesh over in povray.binaries.misc so others can give it a try.
>
> So, when's that next RC coming??
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
It is really a piece of fine POV-art.
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

On 3/7/2011 2:30 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 05.03.2011 19:17, schrieb Robert McGregor:
>
>> So, when's that next RC coming??
>
> It's being delayed a bit, unfortunately.

Awwww :(

I'm sure there's a good reason. Can't wait! You got me back into poving 
again. Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:12:50 -0400, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
> > dang ... that's looking pretty good there Rob!
>
> Very cool work, Rob.  This should be a sample image, or at least in the
> hall of fame.
>
> Jim

Thanks guys, much appreciated :)

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Ok ... here's my offering, and I've got to say that using the jade 
definition in stones.inc was an epic fail. Render time was almost 13hrs 
and I just didn't like the results. Layered textures doesn't seem to be 
a very good fit, but of course it wouldn't surprise me if I was doing 
something wrong ... I only made a few minor tweaks to the jade def :-(

Also in this version I chucked the reflection attribute, which I'm not 
totally understanding because /everything/ has some reflection right?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (302 KB)

Preview of image 'work.png'

On 12/03/2011 3:18 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> Ok ... here's my offering, and I've got to say that using the jade
> definition in stones.inc was an epic fail. Render time was almost 13hrs
> and I just didn't like the results. Layered textures doesn't seem to be
> a very good fit, but of course it wouldn't surprise me if I was doing
> something wrong ... I only made a few minor tweaks to the jade def :-(
>
I'm not really surprised using the standard Jade as a base for your 
subsurface texture. Real, expensive jade is very light in colour. The 
lighter the colour the better quality.
I found these values on the internet.
colour rgbft < 0, 0, 0,0.000,0.000>// Jade	
subsurface { < 0.657, 0.786, 0.9>,< 0.00053, 0.00123, 0.0021> } // Jade

The examples I’ve posted were layered textures so it does work,


> Also in this version I chucked the reflection attribute, which I'm not
> totally understanding because /everything/ has some reflection right?
>

Mostly yes. I've been using reflection {
rgb <0.000,0.000,0.000>, rgb <0.100,0.100,0.090>

The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT, 
it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 3:18 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > Ok ... here's my offering, and I've got to say that using the jade
> > definition in stones.inc was an epic fail. Render time was almost 13hrs
> > and I just didn't like the results. Layered textures doesn't seem to be
> > a very good fit, but of course it wouldn't surprise me if I was doing
> > something wrong ... I only made a few minor tweaks to the jade def :-(
> >
> I'm not really surprised using the standard Jade as a base for your
> subsurface texture. Real, expensive jade is very light in colour. The
> lighter the colour the better quality.
> I found these values on the internet.
> colour rgbft < 0, 0, 0,0.000,0.000>// Jade
> subsurface { < 0.657, 0.786, 0.9>,< 0.00053, 0.00123, 0.0021> } // Jade
>
> The examples I’ve posted were layered textures so it does work,
>
>
> > Also in this version I chucked the reflection attribute, which I'm not
> > totally understanding because /everything/ has some reflection right?
> >
>
> Mostly yes. I've been using reflection {
> rgb <0.000,0.000,0.000>, rgb <0.100,0.100,0.090>
>
> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(

BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
optimize away media-based SSS.

have you guys been using the full-resolution model or the highest resolution
decimated version?

Post a reply to this message

On 12/03/2011 7:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
> optimize away media-based SSS.
>

Don't ask me ;-)

> have you guys been using the full-resolution model or the highest resolution
> decimated version?

I've been using my own decimated version. I reduced is as far as I could 
and still keep most of the detail.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(

I agree, that's why I further developed my multipass render tricks this last
weekend. The technique allows you to render the subsurface pass separately,
without radiosity or area lights and it's then pretty fast, even with focal
blur.

Then you can render the regular shot without subsurface, but with radiosity,
area lights, etc. and just screen the subsurface pass on top. It's a HUGE
render-time saver.

-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

On 12/03/2011 8:40 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
>> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(
>
> I agree, that's why I further developed my multipass render tricks this last
> weekend. The technique allows you to render the subsurface pass separately,
> without radiosity or area lights and it's then pretty fast, even with focal
> blur.
>
> Then you can render the regular shot without subsurface, but with radiosity,
> area lights, etc. and just screen the subsurface pass on top. It's a HUGE
> render-time saver.
>

That sounds a great time saver. At the moment I'm rendering a Poser Mesh 
at 14 PPS and that's without area lights or radiosity.
I think I must have the settings wrong. :-(
Well tomorrow will show how it comes out. (I hope)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 7:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
> > optimize away media-based SSS.
> >
>
> Don't ask me ;-)

my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)

> > have you guys been using the full-resolution model or the highest resolution
> > decimated version?
>
> I've been using my own decimated version. I reduced is as far as I could
> and still keep most of the detail.

I've used the highest resolution decimated version from this:

ftp://graphics.stanford.edu/pub/3Dscanrep/dragon/dragon_recon.tar.gz

to "photograph" this miniature:

http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg

sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:

http://i54.tinypic.com/69m4d4.jpg

took 15 minutes on a Q6600.  Then again, SSS in Blender is just a post-process
involving the shadows and the z-buffer.  Much like the focal blur too...

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.03.2011 20:47, schrieb nemesis:

>> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
>> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(
>
> BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
> optimize away media-based SSS.

Patience, people! Performance improvements are yet to come; the current 
implementation is still a most basic brute-force approach.

As for using more common SSS algorithms, they all require UV-mapped 
meshes to work, and therefore are unsuited for use in POV-Ray in their 
original form, and either produce far inferior results (simple depht-map 
based SSS), wouldn't give any significant performance benefits when 
adapted accordingly while still being physically less accurate 
(oversampled depth-map based SSS), or simply cannot be adapted to 
POV-Ray at all (texture space diffusion).

Post a reply to this message

On 12/03/2011 10:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 7:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
>>> optimize away media-based SSS.
>>>
>>
>> Don't ask me ;-)
>
> my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
> radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
> results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)
>

Yes, your bad. It is impolite to call someone by their surname without 
their title. It sounds disrespectful.
I seldom use radiosity so again I wouldn’t know. Thanks for telling me.

>
> I've used the highest resolution decimated version from this:
>
> ftp://graphics.stanford.edu/pub/3Dscanrep/dragon/dragon_recon.tar.gz
>

Thanks for the link. I didn't know of it. :-)

> to "photograph" this miniature:
>
> http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg
>
> sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
> different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
> and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:
>

Shame about the focal blur. :-(



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 10:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
> > radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
> > results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)
> >
>
> Yes, your bad. It is impolite to call someone by their surname without
> their title. It sounds disrespectful.

Is it so Comrade Stephen?  I wouldn't know -- perhaps call him Chevalier
McGregor?  McGregor-san?

I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...

> > to "photograph" this miniature:
> >
> > http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg
> >
> > sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
> > different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
> > and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:
> >
>
> Shame about the focal blur. :-(

but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 4:43 PM, nemesis wrote:

>
> Is it so Comrade Stephen?  I wouldn't know -- perhaps call him Chevalier
> McGregor?  McGregor-san?
>

That is up to Robert.

> I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
> the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...
>

Personally being called “McAvoy” by someone really p*sses me off. It 
reeks of times gone by (and not ancient history either), when our 
*Masters* and *Betters* (may they all rot in Hell) showed their social 
superiority by not giving a person their title.
Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.


>>
>> Shame about the focal blur. :-(
>
> but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O
>
>
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg
>

True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you 
are trying to show off another technique.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 13/03/2011 4:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
> > the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...
> >
>
> Personally being called “McAvoy” by someone really p*sses me off. It
> reeks of times gone by (and not ancient history either), when our
> *Masters* and *Betters* (may they all rot in Hell) showed their social
> superiority by not giving a person their title.

My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
of it. :)

It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.

> Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.

ok, comrade! :)

> >> Shame about the focal blur. :-(
> >
> > but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O
> >
> >
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg
> >
>
> True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you
> are trying to show off another technique.

oh, I got you, huh?  You thought I was trying to impress you with SSS, but I was
just enjoying those bokeh! ;)

in any case, I provided the raw render to compare the different SSS levels...
too much and it looks really like a miniature...

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
> My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
> of it.:)
>
> It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
>

Where is *here*?


>> >  Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.
> ok, comrade!:)
>

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/songs/rf-t-mw.mp2

Or

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/songs/rf-wc-dg.mp2


>> >  True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you
>> >  are trying to show off another technique.
> oh, I got you, huh?  You thought I was trying to impress you with SSS, but I was
> just enjoying those bokeh!;)
>

No, not impress me but show the beauty of SSLT.

> in any case, I provided the raw render to compare the different SSS levels...
> too much and it looks really like a miniature...
>
>
Indeed!

Nice images, if I didn't say.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
> > of it.:)
> >
> > It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
> >
>
> Where is *here*?

Brazil.  Quite a surreal country... :p

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 7:28 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
>>> of it.:)
>>>
>>> It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
>>>

I just thought you should know.

>>
>> Where is *here*?
>
> Brazil.  Quite a surreal country... :p
>

I remember now. Not that Brazil is a surreal country


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message