 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0023.png' (732 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0023.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 00:26, schrieb clipka:
> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
Just for comparison: Same scene, just with the SSLT turned off. ~7 minutes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 00:38, schrieb clipka:
> Am 06.03.2012 00:26, schrieb clipka:
>> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
>> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
>
> Just for comparison: Same scene, just with the SSLT turned off. ~7 minutes.
... and I /did/ intend to attach the render output.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0035.png' (601 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 0035.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. ;-)
What settings did you use?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 :-)
> What settings did you use?
#declare MtMarble = material {
texture {
pigment {
marble
warp { turbulence 1.0 }
color_map {
[0.0 color rgb <0.5,0.7,0.5>]
[1.0 color rgb <0.5,1.0,0.5>]
}
}
finish {
diffuse albedo 0.7
subsurface { translucency <0.5,0.2,0.2> }
reflection { 0.2 fresnel }
specular albedo 0.2 roughness 0.01
conserve_energy
}
scale 10 / MM_PER_UNIT
}
interior { ior 1.5 }
}
(with Lucy being about 1.5 units in height, and MM_PER_UNIT being set to
100, so that she's roughly 150 mm)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just spent a night with her. Oh boy, what a lady - it was totally worth
the 8 hours!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 1024.png' (409 KB)
Preview of image 'stanford_lucy 2012-03-06 1024.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>clipka on date 06/03/2012 0.26 wrote:
> Another Lucy render. SSLT, focal blur, radiosity, and an illuminated
> torch. Render time ~50 minutes.
I like this one better than the (however beautiful) icy one.
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
cool!
although she doesn't seem completely thawed yet ;)
Is the bright pixel noise in dark areas an SSLT artefact?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.03.2012 19:19, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> Is the bright pixel noise in dark areas an SSLT artefact?
Yup. I'm already running another render with higher-quality settings
(and desktop-size resolution).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I'm already running another render with higher-quality settings
> (and desktop-size resolution).
Fantastic!
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
