 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Inside the arboretum...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ncc1701_arboretum.jpg' (595 KB)
Preview of image 'ncc1701_arboretum.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...and from the port outside.
And yes I know, doing Star Trek in the 21st century is so retro.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ncc1701_arboretum_outside.jpg' (215 KB)
Preview of image 'ncc1701_arboretum_outside.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
O_0
I'll say something once I stop drooling...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/12/10 11:59, Ive a écrit :
> Inside the arboretum...
This is not the place to post photographs :P
Very nice.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> ...and from the port outside.
nice one
> And yes I know, doing Star Trek in the 21st century is so retro.
Of course it's not - that would mean I'm old.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
With a wide angle camera even more of the Big E.
Long ago, the refit Enterprise NCC-1701 (as seen in the first three
movies) was my first *big* POV-Ray project.
My main reference was a collection of photos from the real thing (the
3-meter-model used for the shooting) found at William McCullars
IDIC-page - but the site has meanwhile vanished into digital nirvana.
As far as I remember it did start with POV-Ray version 3.0 and did
continue until version 3.5 when I lost interest - mostly because at this
time the model did take ages to render. As POV-Ray tells me there are 90
light sources (when all are switched on) and most of them need to be
area-lights, also many parts of the hull use blurred reflections.
But with POV-Ray 3.7 (and a fast machine) it renders even with radiosity
turned on pretty fast. And using radiosity gives a nice touch due
internal diffuse reflections from the ship-hull.
Well the source code is a mess and I didn't want to touch it besides of
replacing "ambient" by "emission". But I did add the arboretum that was
meant to be within the secondary hull and was actually never seen in the
movies. So I had total freedom when making it and was at first tempted
to create something very exotic by e.g. designing plants from alien
planets but then I figured: when actually going boldly where no man has
gone before, you would take a bit "earth" with you. And some earthly
wilderness did make a nice contrast to the clean "Star-Trek-Look" that
also has to be present.
Lighting the arboretum was quite difficult as it should look natural
*and* artificial at the same time. And without requiring HQ radiosity
settings to keep rendering time reasonable. It is mostly faked by a
spotlight with a soft falloff and projected_through the ceiling dome.
Thanks for watching and reading and I'm quite happy that I can put at
least one of my numerous unfinished businesses aside.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ncc1701_port_view.jpg' (136 KB)
Preview of image 'ncc1701_port_view.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-12-2011 17:59, Ive wrote:
> Inside the arboretum...
Very nice indeed. I think StarTrek will never be retro, at least not
before the 25th century. :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive wrote:
> My main reference was a collection of photos from the real thing (the
> 3-meter-model used for the shooting) found at William McCullars
> IDIC-page - but the site has meanwhile vanished into digital nirvana.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071202124000/http://members.aol.com/idicpage/main.html
Vanishing into digital nirvana isn't quite so easy nowadays ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.12.2011 21:49, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> Vanishing into digital nirvana isn't quite so easy nowadays ;)
>
I see ;)
But note that the pictures found there are taken from the NCC-1701-A
(introduced at the end of the 4th movie) while I'm referring to the
original Enterprise (without the 'A') as seen within the first three
movies and destroyed at the end of the 3rd (Kirk: "What have I done").
So either parts of the IDIC-page are missing or my memory is wrong -
most probably the latter.
While the used studio model was the same it was painted differently.
And I for one always preferred the lighting design done by Douglas
Trumbull for the first movie where the ship does illuminate itself and
so there is a reason why it is actually partial visible when it travels
in deep space.
The later 1701-A was lit by ILM in that typical Star-Wars-plain-white
manner that I do not find very interesting.
BTW here is some interesting reading from Paul Olson who did the paint
job an the Big E.
http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoft org> wrote in message news:4ee39072@news.povray.org...
> Inside the arboretum...
>
Awesome! How did you get that real nice blue light to work??
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb Dre:
> Awesome!
Thanks.
>How did you get that real nice blue light to work??
Well, the construction of the ceiling, the dome and the whole lighting
is so simple that I'm almost ashamed of it ;)
It is really just a clipped_by sphere and a torus (both with a radial
texture and emission) and one spotlight.
The spotlight simulates two things at once:
- the "daylight lamp" that would simulate the sun within the arboretum
and is currently close to zenith.
- the "light tubes" surrounding the dome.
The radius of the spotlight matches exactly the dome radius and the
falloff is adjusted to match the top of the port and starboard window
walls. It is yellow/red to compensate for the blue dome color and the
blue tint produced by radiosity. So we get an average white daylight
condition under the dome and a slightly bluish tint at the outside due
the falloff of the spotlight.
light_source { <0,10,0> rgb <0.90, 0.85, 0.75>*5
spotlight point_at <0,0,0> radius 48 falloff 66
area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 5,5 adaptive 2 circular orient
fade_power 2 fade_distance FD*2
projected_through {Ceiling}
}
This together with moderate radiosity settings
radiosity {
pretrace_start 0.08
pretrace_end 2/max(image_width,image_height)
count 250
nearest_count 10
error_bound 0.45
recursion_limit 1
low_error_factor 0.5
gray_threshold 0
minimum_reuse 0.015
brightness 1.0
adc_bailout 0.01/2
always_sample off
normal off
}
produced the original image at 1920x1080 pixel within 24 hours - and I
consider this also as quite moderate given the incredible amount of
grass blades, leaves and petals ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Inside the arboretum...
This is wonderful! Beautifully done sir, as always :)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.12.2011 00:40, schrieb Robert McGregor:
>Beautifully done sir, as always
As you were!
But I really do not have any rank in Starfleet ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote in message news:4ee68d12$1@news.povray.org...
> Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb Dre:
>> Awesome!
>
> Thanks.
>
>>How did you get that real nice blue light to work??
>
> Well, the construction of the ceiling, the dome and the whole lighting is
> so simple that I'm almost ashamed of it ;)
>
> It is really just a clipped_by sphere and a torus (both with a radial
> texture and emission) and one spotlight.
> The spotlight simulates two things at once:
> - the "daylight lamp" that would simulate the sun within the arboretum and
> is currently close to zenith.
> - the "light tubes" surrounding the dome.
> The radius of the spotlight matches exactly the dome radius and the
> falloff is adjusted to match the top of the port and starboard window
> walls. It is yellow/red to compensate for the blue dome color and the blue
> tint produced by radiosity. So we get an average white daylight condition
> under the dome and a slightly bluish tint at the outside due the falloff
> of the spotlight.
>
> light_source { <0,10,0> rgb <0.90, 0.85, 0.75>*5
> spotlight point_at <0,0,0> radius 48 falloff 66
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 5,5 adaptive 2 circular orient
> fade_power 2 fade_distance FD*2
> projected_through {Ceiling}
> }
>
> This together with moderate radiosity settings
>
> radiosity {
> pretrace_start 0.08
> pretrace_end 2/max(image_width,image_height)
> count 250
> nearest_count 10
> error_bound 0.45
> recursion_limit 1
> low_error_factor 0.5
> gray_threshold 0
> minimum_reuse 0.015
> brightness 1.0
> adc_bailout 0.01/2
> always_sample off
> normal off
> }
>
> produced the original image at 1920x1080 pixel within 24 hours - and I
> consider this also as quite moderate given the incredible amount of grass
> blades, leaves and petals ;)
>
> -Ive
Great stuff, sometimes the simple things are the best way to do things!
Thanks for the description, I'll sure have a play with that and see what I
can come up with :)
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-12-2011 1:31, Ive wrote:
> But I really do not have any rank in Starfleet ;)
Arboretum First Officer, I would say ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/12/12 18:22, Ive a écrit :
> light_source { <0,10,0> rgb <0.90, 0.85, 0.75>*5
> spotlight point_at <0,0,0> radius 48 falloff 66
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 5,5 adaptive 2 circular orient
> fade_power 2 fade_distance FD*2
> projected_through {Ceiling}
> }
>
> -Ive
Here, adaptive have no effect.
adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
...
area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 9,9 adaptive 2 circular orient only have a
marginal advantage.
adaptive 2 start to have a notable speed advantage at 17 by 17 and more.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Inside the arboretum...
Wow, Ive, that's an awesome render. I especially like the ground cover; it
really gives me some ideas :)
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.12.2011 01:40, schrieb Samuel Benge:
>
> I especially like the ground cover; it
> really gives me some ideas :)
>
Great. To me your images have always been a source of inspiration ;) and
I really like your ongoing experimenting and your incredible good eye
for details.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.12.2011 05:41, schrieb Alain:
> Here, adaptive have no effect.
> adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
> adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
> adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
> ...
>
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 9,9 adaptive 2 circular orient only have a
> marginal advantage.
> adaptive 2 start to have a notable speed advantage at 17 by 17 and more.
>
Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correct. You mean using adaptive 2
makes only sense when using *more* than 5 by 5, right?
Actually I never did a serious speed/quality trade-off compare regarding
area_lights parameters and used more a "I guess this might work" and
alternatively a "better more than less" approach. Probably not a good
idea, so thanks for the head up.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correct. You mean using adaptive 2
> makes only sense when using *more* than 5 by 5, right?
Yes. These are from my notes:
Array Size Maximum Useful Value Break-Even Value
2 x 2 none 0
3 x 3 0 1
5 x 5 1 2
9 x 9 2 3
17 x 17 3 4
33 x 33 4 5
Accordingly, adaptive 2 has no effect on 5 by 5.
> Actually I never did a serious speed/quality trade-off compare regarding
> area_lights parameters and used more a "I guess this might work" and
> alternatively a "better more than less" approach. Probably not a good
> idea, so thanks for the head up.
I've done such comparisons, based on Alain's advice. My general findings are:
- Adaptive 0 tends to produce unrealistic effects, especially if
an object (e.g., the lamp fixture!) is close to the light source.
- Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
- IIRC, 9 by 9 adaptive 0 was faster than 5 by 5 adaptive 1. (I
don't know if that test can be generalized.) However, the poor
quality of the adaptive 0 usually isn't worth the speed advantage.
- Jitter helps.
- 9 by 9 adaptive 1 is usually a good setting.
However, I haven't tested 9 by 9 adaptive 1 against 5 by 5 adaptive 2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> - Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/20/2011 04:56 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> - Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
>
> BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
yikes ... you are correct! If someone knows what the default is I'll
make sure it get added in the appropriate place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 04:56 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> > BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
>
> yikes ... you are correct! If someone knows what the default is I'll
> make sure it get added in the appropriate place.
There is no default value. According to the syntax diagram (and a quick test
corroborates this), the adaptive keyword requires a value. Without the adaptive
keyword, there is no adaptive sampling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
