 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/07/2011 10:13 PM, stbenge wrote:
> It probably won't, and it's not my fault <g> Maybe if you use
> superellipsoids instead of rounded boxes, the memory requirement of the
> macro will be lower (just a guess).
Yep ... no difference. The number of parsed tokens sky-rockets when
scaling is less than 0.75 (OTO). I ended up using twice that in this
version.
I /really/ like the reflected view but I'm not so sure about the pose.
The backside illumination on the shrubs turned out cool with the light
at this angle, I also put some specular and a normal on the floor.
Before I decide if I want to develop this approach and further I figured
I'd post to see what kind of reaction I get ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ndi.png' (357 KB)
Preview of image 'ndi.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2011 8:38 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> See p.general : a challenge of sorts
>
> Recreating the image (provided scene is free of rights, update& change
> as you wants)
>
> There is room for improvements.
>
> comment the arealight's line for a very quicker render (but stronger
> shadows)
The scene looks dated, IMO. Maybe we could come up with something new?
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/28/2011 11:50 AM, posfan12 wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 8:38 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> See p.general : a challenge of sorts
>>
>> Recreating the image (provided scene is free of rights, update& change
>> as you wants)
>>
>> There is room for improvements.
>>
>> comment the arealight's line for a very quicker render (but stronger
>> shadows)
>
> The scene looks dated, IMO. Maybe we could come up with something new?
>
Oops, mail reader didn't catch up with the entire thread before I posted.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 28.06.2011 16:33, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> Before I decide if I want to develop this approach and further I figured
> I'd post to see what kind of reaction I get ;-)
Freakin' cool mood!
What's that bright thing in the lower right though? You didn't use
diffuse on the reflecting plate, did you? That would be far from
realistic for a polished surface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/29/2011 11:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 28.06.2011 16:33, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>> Before I decide if I want to develop this approach and further I figured
>> I'd post to see what kind of reaction I get ;-)
>
> Freakin' cool mood!
>
> What's that bright thing in the lower right though? You didn't use
> diffuse on the reflecting plate, did you? That would be far from
> realistic for a polished surface.
the bright spot in lwr right is the light source reaching that far into
the room, since it intercepts the reflecting plate just a little I might
be able to transform the light source just a bit ... the texture on the
slab is one of the copper definitions from metals.inc with a little
emission in place of the ambient term
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.06.2011 11:12, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> the bright spot in lwr right is the light source reaching that far into
> the room, since it intercepts the reflecting plate just a little I might
> be able to transform the light source just a bit ... the texture on the
> slab is one of the copper definitions from metals.inc with a little
> emission in place of the ambient term
Emission? Don't!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 06/29/2011 11:42 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 28.06.2011 16:33, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>>> Before I decide if I want to develop this approach and further I figured
>>> I'd post to see what kind of reaction I get ;-)
>>
>> Freakin' cool mood!
>>
>> What's that bright thing in the lower right though? You didn't use
>> diffuse on the reflecting plate, did you? That would be far from
>> realistic for a polished surface.
>
> the bright spot in lwr right is the light source reaching that far into
> the room, since it intercepts the reflecting plate just a little I might
> be able to transform the light source just a bit ... the texture on the
> slab is one of the copper definitions from metals.inc with a little
> emission in place of the ambient term
Emission for a metallic texture? Yuch!
The ambient terms in those texture are hugly and dirty kludges to make
them look acceptable when there is no environment.
Metals, unless hot enough, never emit any light, they reflect it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/30/2011 06:07 PM, Alain wrote:
>> On 06/29/2011 11:42 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 28.06.2011 16:33, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>>>> Before I decide if I want to develop this approach and further I
>>>> figured
>>>> I'd post to see what kind of reaction I get ;-)
>>>
>>> Freakin' cool mood!
>>>
>>> What's that bright thing in the lower right though? You didn't use
>>> diffuse on the reflecting plate, did you? That would be far from
>>> realistic for a polished surface.
>>
>> the bright spot in lwr right is the light source reaching that far into
>> the room, since it intercepts the reflecting plate just a little I might
>> be able to transform the light source just a bit ... the texture on the
>> slab is one of the copper definitions from metals.inc with a little
>> emission in place of the ambient term
>
> Emission for a metallic texture? Yuch!
> The ambient terms in those texture are hugly and dirty kludges to make
> them look acceptable when there is no environment.
>
> Metals, unless hot enough, never emit any light, they reflect it.
LOL ... ok you guys, I get the message ;-) I must've been thinking of
something else, I checked and I have both ambient/emission set to zero
... although setting the ambient term is moot because radiosity
effectively sets it to zero.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.06.2011 23:12, schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>> Metals, unless hot enough, never emit any light, they reflect it.
>
> LOL ... ok you guys, I get the message ;-) I must've been thinking of
> something else, I checked and I have both ambient/emission set to zero
> .... although setting the ambient term is moot because radiosity
> effectively sets it to zero.
Good boy ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/2011 12:50 PM, posfan12 wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 8:38 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> See p.general : a challenge of sorts
>>
>> Recreating the image (provided scene is free of rights, update& change
>> as you wants)
>>
>> There is room for improvements.
>>
>> comment the arealight's line for a very quicker render (but stronger
>> shadows)
>
> The scene looks dated, IMO. Maybe we could come up with something new?
>
How's this for a different approach ... I actually like this! It's just
an intersection slice of the distribution logo repeated using an
adaptation of the helix solution that Le_Forgeron posted a while ago.The
text and "helix-logo" object are textured together so the text gets it's
pigment from the depth position. The background uses Sam's OTO (Odd
Tiles Object) macro. Comments appreciated.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ndi.png' (728 KB)
Preview of image 'ndi.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
