 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] povray org> 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
> 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
>
>
>
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
