 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-3-2012 17:55, clipka wrote:
> Just spent a night with her. Oh boy, what a lady - it was totally worth
> the 8 hours!
Very impressive! I shall have to use SSLT one day for sure ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/03/2012 4:45 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 06.03.2012 08:58, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 05/03/2012 11:26 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
>>> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
>>
>> Well that showed me. ;-)
>
> That was my initial intention... until I found out that she's a real
> beauty indeed, and worth spending some time with her on my own accord :-)
>
Good it worked. ;-)
She is worth spending time with.
>> What settings did you use?
>
> subsurface { translucency <0.5,0.2,0.2> }
This is the bit that I don't understand.
Why did you pick these values? I don't understand why you made the red
value larger than the others.
Thanks
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.03.2012 12:09, schrieb Stephen:
>> subsurface { translucency <0.5,0.2,0.2> }
>
> This is the bit that I don't understand.
> Why did you pick these values? I don't understand why you made the red
> value larger than the others.
As for the general scale of the translucency parameter, I toyed around
with it until I found a setting that seemed to convey the right sense of
scale and material to me. It was just a matter of "this looks to solid"
vs. "this looks too waxy".
As for the red component, I decided that I wanted thin portions of the
material to have a somewhat reddish tint, despite of the overall
greenish appearance. To achieve this, red light needs to travel further
inside the material than other colors.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2012 11:38 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 07.03.2012 12:09, schrieb Stephen:
>
>>> subsurface { translucency <0.5,0.2,0.2> }
>>
>> This is the bit that I don't understand.
>> Why did you pick these values? I don't understand why you made the red
>> value larger than the others.
>
> As for the general scale of the translucency parameter, I toyed around
> with it until I found a setting that seemed to convey the right sense of
> scale and material to me. It was just a matter of "this looks to solid"
> vs. "this looks too waxy".
>
> As for the red component, I decided that I wanted thin portions of the
> material to have a somewhat reddish tint, despite of the overall
> greenish appearance. To achieve this, red light needs to travel further
> inside the material than other colors.
Thanks, again.
So it seems that James Holsenback was telling the truth. It is a case of
suck it and see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/07/2012 12:16 PM, Stephen wrote:
> It is a case of suck it and see.
LOL ... yes there is a treat in the center if you suck long enough ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2012 7:20 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 12:16 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> It is a case of suck it and see.
>
> LOL ... yes there is a treat in the center if you suck long enough ;-)
>
Hmm! Sherbet. :-D
I found my problem, well one of them anyway. ;-)
With RC3 I was using a texture map material and each texture had its own
subsurface {}. That does not work well with RC4.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 20:01, schrieb clipka:
> Yup. I'm already running another render with higher-quality settings
> (and desktop-size resolution).
And here she is. Originally rendered at 3840x2400 pixels. Render time
was less than 7 hours.
Don't expect to get the same quality at the same speed with official 3.7
though: I needed to code a totally new anti-aliasing mode for this, and
it won't make it into the release. It'll make a good base for a
stochastic rendering spin-off of POV-Ray 3.7 though, so stay tuned.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-07 2235 1920x1200.png' (490 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-07 2235 1920x1200.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.03.2012 23:23, schrieb clipka:
> And here she is. Originally rendered at 3840x2400 pixels. Render time
> was less than 7 hours.
A close-up of the original. As you can see there is still some pixel
noise, but the noise level is much more uniform across the whole image,
making it far less distracting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.03.2012 23:40, schrieb clipka:
> Am 07.03.2012 23:23, schrieb clipka:
>
>> And here she is. Originally rendered at 3840x2400 pixels. Render time
>> was less than 7 hours.
>
> A close-up of the original. As you can see there is still some pixel
> noise, but the noise level is much more uniform across the whole image,
> making it far less distracting.
... forgot the attachment again.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-07 2235 detail.png' (1310 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-07 2235 detail.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/03/2012 10:23 PM, clipka wrote:
> And here she is.
The lighting makes it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
