 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/08/12 21:49, MichaelJF wrote:
> Wonderful work again, Bill must be kidding. Even in an enlargement I
> cannot see any remains of polygons.
>
Thanks, but Bill was totally right... and has an exceptional eye,
because it is not that much noticeable, in fact. :)
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/12 02:13, Ive wrote:
> well, the cue tip mesh needs obviously a bit of subdivision.
Yep...
> To be more picky I do not buy the highlights, especially the
> yellowish corona around them.
Yes, I forgot to change the light color to match the one on the HDRI
background.
> And the furry look of the pool surface seems with its circular
> patterns to much like an old fashioned POV-Ray procedural texture.
I really don't see these, but my vision isn't what it used to be...
they must come from the heavy turbulence applied to the image map (I
used a "re-colored" picture of a furry fabric from mayang.com).
> But the rack and the ball scratches are just excellent and SSS is
> also perfect.
Well, I must admit that I cheated a bit and helped the effect by
manipulating the ball image maps, using blur around the edges... ;)
> Strange thing, (and no offense to clipka) but after some experiments
> with SSLT I also do still prefer POV-Ray's good old media feature
> for subsurface scattering effects.
My former tests with uniform pigments worked fine, just seemed as slow
as media, and only a bit easier to setup... but here, with image maps,
it did not work at all, showing bright pixel artifacts with unexpected
colors. Then I remembered clipka mentioning this problem some time ago,
so I switched to classic media.. which was easy in the end, as it worked
fine with my first try:
media{
scattering{1,1}
absorption 1
}
combined with "transmit all .33" on the image maps. It sometimes
throws some bright pixel artifacts here and there, but on this shot I
was lucky...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This looks great. Maybe the scratches are too pronounced in some places
(#12, #2). And the chalk cube needs some weathering.
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.08.2012 09:06, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
>> And the furry look of the pool surface seems with its circular
>> patterns to much like an old fashioned POV-Ray procedural texture.
>
> I really don't see these, but my vision isn't what it used to be...
> they must come from the heavy turbulence applied to the image map (I
> used a "re-colored" picture of a furry fabric from mayang.com).
>
Well, so it might be just me.
Sometimes (as in this case) I see the "warped" textures and think they
are too obvious. It might just be the wiring of pattern recognition
within my brain ;)
It also happened to me e.g. with the asphalt seen in the "Dodge in the
parking-lot image". I did find it so distracting there that I did
quickly trace() a few 10000 tiny stones on the ground to hide it...
>> But the rack and the ball scratches are just excellent and SSS is
>> also perfect.
>
> Well, I must admit that I cheated a bit and helped the effect by
> manipulating the ball image maps, using blur around the edges... ;)
>
no cheating at all IMO!
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaime Vives Piqueres
Subject: Re: Pool balls (2nd attempt) [Final, 584KB]
Date: 10 Aug 2012 13:08:57
Message: <50254029@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is the final version... thanks everyone for the comments and
suggestions.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'poolballs-12.jpg' (585 KB)
Preview of image 'poolballs-12.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/12 10:34, Jellby wrote:
> This looks great.
Thanks!
> Maybe the scratches are too pronounced in some places (#12, #2).
Hmmm... after looking at hundreds of pictures of old billiard balls, I
think they can be even more pronounced. I think it is the shape what is
wrong: I used an image which contains scratches on a flat surface, and
on a spherical surface they tend to be more circular...
> And the chalk cube needs some weathering.
Yes, thanks for the reminder... it's done now (not very good, but
acceptable, I guess).
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
you achieved Jaime's level of awesomeness, congrats.
But hey, it's Jaime himself!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> On 09/08/12 21:49, MichaelJF wrote:
> > Wonderful work again, Bill must be kidding. Even in an enlargement I
> > cannot see any remains of polygons.
> >
>
> Thanks, but Bill was totally right... and has an exceptional eye,
> because it is not that much noticeable, in fact. :)
>
> --
> Jaime
Yes, may be. But I think you argue about 4 pixels within the whole picture.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Here is the final version... thanks everyone for the comments and
> suggestions.
Awesome. The slight reflections on the cue and triangle really improve it, and
the highlights on the balls are better too. :D
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-8-2012 19:08, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Here is the final version...
Aaah.... I find nothing to say really except excellent, as usual.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
