 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Variations on highlights & blurred reflection, with specular highlight
parameters chosen to properly match the reflection.
Top to bottom: Reflection brightness increasing from 0.0 (top) via
0.025, 0.05 to 0.1 (bottom). Corresponding specular brightness parameter
depends on surface roughness.
Left to right: Varying roughness starting at 0.1 (leftmost in each row)
and decreasing by a factor of 10 from each ball to the next on the right
(end roughness differs per row).
I'd say, top one is some foamy material; right below it on the left
might be some dull plastic, on the right some less dull one (playpen
balls come to my mind).
The material on the very bottom left looks pretty intriguing to me;
might make a good starting point for a brown egshell, or even skin.
Properties are a diffuse brightness of 0.7, specular set to 0.275 at a
roughness of 0.1, and a blurred reflection of brightness 0.1 and
roughness 0.1 (MC-Pov would call that 10).
Bottom right might be some yellow car paint.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stochastic_reflection.png' (470 KB)
Preview of image 'stochastic_reflection.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Variations on highlights & blurred reflection, with specular highlight
> parameters chosen to properly match the reflection.
Looks promising ;)
Could the highlights be replaced using a visible light source?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.11.2011 01:49, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Variations on highlights & blurred reflection, with specular highlight
>> parameters chosen to properly match the reflection.
>
> Looks promising ;)
>
> Could the highlights be replaced using a visible light source?
In theory, yes; that would be taken care for by the reflection then.
There are significant caveats though:
- Only light sources with a square falloff can be replaced that way; in
this image, the light source has no falloff.
- Light sources with a square falloff need to be extremely bright to get
the same illumination as from a no-falloff source. As a result, a
corresponding visible light source would be very prone to stray speckle
artifacts. (Shooting more rays will help though.) I haven't implemented
anything like MC-Pov's portals yet to compensate for this.
Anyway, why would you actually want to replace the highlights in the
first place, if they perfectly match the reflection parameters?
(Thanks for reminding me though that I have to implement a way to make
sure that light sources with looks_like objects don't get taken into
account twice; I guess at present you'd get the highlights /and/ the
reflection. Maybe a per-material switch would come in handy, so you can
choose highlights for very blurry surfaces, while taking the looks_like
object for very shiny surfaces. Or even a weighted average of both? Hm...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-11-2011 1:36, clipka wrote:
> Variations on highlights & blurred reflection, with specular highlight
> parameters chosen to properly match the reflection.
>
> [snip]
> The material on the very bottom left looks pretty intriguing to me;
> might make a good starting point for a brown egshell, or even skin.
> Properties are a diffuse brightness of 0.7, specular set to 0.275 at a
> roughness of 0.1, and a blurred reflection of brightness 0.1 and
> roughness 0.1 (MC-Pov would call that 10).
>
> Bottom right might be some yellow car paint.
Yes, yes, that is very exciting indeed. Quite a lot of applications to
different objects I can imagine...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
