On 02/10/2011 8:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>
> I think we need to make a compromise between a very large number of fine
> hairs (= very heavy data file) and fewer, somewhat thicker hairs (=
> smaller data file). I have been mainly exploring the latter option,
> which implies the search for a convincing hair texture.
>


shortly. ;-)

> Here is an example, with a 300+Mb data file and a simple grey pigment.
>


his company any time soon.

Here is one I did yesterday with a hair density of 30000 (24500 hairs) 
715 MB.
All textures are defaults.
Now for curly and longer hair.

Thanks for letting me know about this.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'grownhair01e1_.jpg' (181 KB)

Preview of image 'grownhair01e1_.jpg'

On 2-10-2011 9:34, Stephen wrote:

> his company any time soon.
>
> Here is one I did yesterday with a hair density of 30000 (24500 hairs)
> 715 MB.
> All textures are defaults.
> Now for curly and longer hair.
>
> Thanks for letting me know about this.

This is looking very good Stephen! Finer and more hairs is of course 
better in close up. At a distance, one should be able to get away with 
lower density... That might be the choice to make when building a scene.

In any case, Poseray is handling the hairs quite nicely now, though I 
would like to see some improvement on the handling of the different hair 
files generated. There appears to be some confusion with the name-giving 
which should be more straightforward and directly related to the 
original names. I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/10/2011 9:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is looking very good Stephen!

Thanks

> Finer and more hairs is of course
> better in close up. At a distance, one should be able to get away with
> lower density... That might be the choice to make when building a scene.
>

As you say. :-)
For scenes the least that you can get away with the better. There is 
enough demand on system resources without adding large meshes.

> In any case, Poseray is handling the hairs quite nicely now, though I
> would like to see some improvement on the handling of the different hair
> files generated. There appears to be some confusion with the name-giving
> which should be more straightforward and directly related to the
> original names.

I noticed that.

> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.

Not a bad idea.

BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use 
of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and 
I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2011 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.
>
> Not a bad idea.
>
> BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use
> of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and
> I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM
>

FlyerX told me that rgb/srgb will be optional in the next beta release.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 02/10/2011 12:18 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 2-10-2011 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>>> I shall see if I can make a proposal to FlyerX about this.
>>
>> Not a bad idea.
>>
>> BTW I'm still using PoseRay v3.12.2 as the current Beta forces the use
>> of sRGB Colours. Unfortunately this is not compatible with Bishop3D and
>> I don't want to take the time out to explore the colour spaces ATM
>>
>
> FlyerX told me that rgb/srgb will be optional in the next beta release.
>
Good, that suits me. :-D


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message