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

Guess what - I managed to get hold of a tin miniature of her! 
Unfortunately, the autofocus doesn't seem to play well with the macro lens.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-08 0034.png' (1610 KB)

Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-08 0034.png'

Le 08/03/2012 00:36, clipka nous fit lire :
> Guess what - I managed to get hold of a tin miniature of her!
> Unfortunately, the autofocus doesn't seem to play well with the macro lens.

Yummy... but you're given away by the 3.7... (hint, no exif, and png has
more to says about what you did at 23:34:30Z on the 7th march)

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.03.2012 23:42, schrieb Stephen:
> On 07/03/2012 10:23 PM, clipka wrote:
>> And here she is.
>
> The lighting makes it.

Ain't that right?

I /love/ toying around with light & shadow.

Post a reply to this message