 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 09:08, Paolo Gibellini escribió:
> I like a lot this one!
Thanks!
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 09:10, BayashiPascal escribió:
> Gorgeous ! I find them an impressionism touch...
Thanks. The "impressionism" touch is nice, but to be frank is only the
result of not being realistic enough... :(
> Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
>
I still have some things to try with the clouds, but I will let it
render this evening, as I've to leave for some hours... will post tonight.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/26/2016 12:56 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 26/04/16 a las 15:52, William F Pokorny escribió:
>> Impressive - though am I correct there are some artifacts in the
>> right part of the center top plume? Was it run with AA ?
>
> You have a good eye... I had to zoom several times to see them! Yes,
> it was run without AA, and the artifacts are likely due to the media
> container (another blob, BTW... I forgot to mention this).
>
>> Asking mostly because of my continuing look into blob related
>> bugs.Those spots look like other issues I have seen related to media
>> and blobs at the blob(s) boundary.
>
> Yes, that's likely the problem: see the attached test. The inner solid
> blob is the object used on the density pattern, and the transparent
> outer blob is the media container: you can clearly see the artifacts are
> coincident with a blob boundary.
>
> --
> jaime
Thanks for checking Jaime. The image is also helpful for understanding
your cloud technique.
Let me add my apologies for the many times I've no doubt mistyped your
name. I typed again this morning - Jamie - but saw it this time.
Many days, my eyes & brain fail to see in the moment the scrambled
things my fingers type!
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 09:30, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> This is excellent. Whenever I've tried to use this type of technique
> before, I can never get the media settings right - my clouds either
> end up not-really-opaque, i.e. I can see other stuff through even the
> densest regions, or so dense that they saturate to black underneath.
Yeah... POV-Ray media isn't easy to setup. In fact it can drive you
crazy most of the time. It's happening to me now as I'm trying to add
another media for the haze (I was using a ground fog until now). But it
looks gorgeous when you find the right setup for your scene...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 12:34, William F Pokorny escribió:
> Thanks for checking Jaime. The image is also helpful for
> understanding your cloud technique.
What you don't see on the image is the other 3 concentric blobs inside
the solid one: they use the same components placement but with
increasingly smaller radius.
> Let me add my apologies for the many times I've no doubt mistyped
> your name. I typed again this morning - Jamie - but saw it this
> time.
Don't worry... I'm already used to being called Jamie. In fact I
rarely notice it: as long as all the characters are there, it looks right.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 09:10, BayashiPascal escribió:
> Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-18.jpg' (55 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-18.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016/04/27 11:49 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 27/04/16 a las 09:10, BayashiPascal escribió:
>> Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
>
> Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
>
> --
> jaime
>
It's a UFO!
=:o
--
________________________________________
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> El 27/04/16 a las 09:10, BayashiPascal escribió:
> > Can't wait to see the composition with the sea.
>
> Well, lots of artifacts and no AA, but looks promising...
Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size version
finishes rendering!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 04:24, Nekar Xenos escribió:
> It's a UFO!
Good idea: if I cannot get ride of the artifacts, I could pass it for
a UFO trying to hide on the clouds using some invisibility trick... :)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 09:22, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> version finishes rendering!
Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-18b.jpg' (84 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-18b.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 27/04/16 a las 10:05, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> Ah yes, the cloud bottom was a problem indeed.
BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
clouds: do not use the df3 directly on the density, but declare it first
as a pigment, then use it on a "gradient y" density map with a less
turbulent version at the bottom. Works nicely...
density{
gradient y
density_map{
[0 pigment_pattern{p_df3}
...little turbulence at bottom...
]
[1 pigment_pattern{p_df3}
...full turbulence at the top...
]
}
}
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> El 28/04/16 a las 09:22, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> > Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> > version finishes rendering!
>
> Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
> one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
> guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
> The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
> pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
I guess the blob containers makes for fewer media calculations - that's a decent
time for such a render.
What causes the artifacts, is it something about the way blobs are implemented?
How about using a merge of the blob component spheres instead?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> El 28/04/16 a las 09:22, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> > Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
> > version finishes rendering!
>
> Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
> one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
> guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
> The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
> pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
>
> --
> jaime
I feel for you concerning the artifacts. I have tried all kinds of tricks to get
rid of them and usually end up in a worse place than I began with. Blasted
container objects! May they be for ever confined to the ninth circle of hell
(the one reserved for treachery)!
I ended up using a single containing object (box or plane) and then filling it
with a skewed y-gradient density to get a flat bottom and then adding a mixture
of wrinkles, bozo and crackle (form<1, 0, 0>) to try to approximate fluffy tops.
Some of my images over at www.landofthefirst.com were created using this. I am
still not 100% happy with them.
I think your idea much better (and I love the results). More ideas to play with.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-4-2016 12:59, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 27/04/16 a las 10:05, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> Ah yes, the cloud bottom was a problem indeed.
>
> BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
> clouds: do not use the df3 directly on the density, but declare it first
> as a pigment, then use it on a "gradient y" density map with a less
> turbulent version at the bottom. Works nicely...
Thanks! Shall try!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 13:04, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> What causes the artifacts, is it something about the way blobs are
> implemented? How about using a merge of the blob component spheres
> instead?
Damn... that was so obvious and easy! Indeed it works great, thanks!
Currently rendering with your solution the exact same clouds for comparison.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 13:13, Simon J. Cambridge escribió:
> I ended up using a single containing object (box or plane) and then filling it
> with a skewed y-gradient density to get a flat bottom and then adding a mixture
> of wrinkles, bozo and crackle (form<1, 0, 0>) to try to approximate fluffy tops.
> Some of my images over at www.landofthefirst.com were created using this. I am
> still not 100% happy with them.
The ones at Othil Homtoh look very nice...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/28/2016 07:04 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>> El 28/04/16 a las 09:22, Bill Pragnell escribió:
>>> Awesome. I look forward to this time next year when the full size
>>> version finishes rendering!
>>
>> Thanks, but it's not that slow... that test took just 29 min, and the
>> one attached here, using +a, took 1h45m using only 4 out of 6 cores. I
>> guess the full render at 1600x900 will take about 4 hours with 6 cores.
>> The idea of using a blob as container, instead a box or sphere, works
>> pretty well... it's just a shame it generates some artifacts. :(
>
> I guess the blob containers makes for fewer media calculations - that's a decent
> time for such a render.
>
> What causes the artifacts, is it something about the way blobs are implemented?
> How about using a merge of the blob component spheres instead?
>
Answering without going back to refresh my old brain cells...
When Gail Shaw hit this issue back in 2005. At that time Slime wrote:
-------
This is probably just a problem with the accuracy of the blob solver; I
think it's not noticing the second (backside) surface near the edges, so
it thinks there's a long distance of media and makes it very bright as a
result. (In 3.5 this may have been diminished by anti-aliasing.)
A suggestion: Use a small box as your media container instead of a blob,
and then use a density{} in the media with the object pattern with the
blob, so that all points outside of the blob have no media.
- Slime
-------
In my digging I've found blob surfaces are actually a bit noisy
especially as the rays hit the surface in a more tangential way - so I
think Slime's thinking as to the cause is probably right.
Things that tend to help:
1) Try running with sturm off.
2) Lower the blob threshold - start extreme with 0.0001 say - though you
may of course lose the blob effect you want, but perhaps in the case of
these clouds this would be OK?
3) The code change I have been working to verify against blob problem
cases from years past tends to help a little with bright artifacts -
more with dark artifacts. Specifically the change in blob.cpp is changing:
const DBL DEPTH_TOLERANCE = 1.0e-2;
to:
const DBL DEPTH_TOLERANCE = 1.0e-4;
4) AA sometimes helps - and sometimes not - depending on how tangential
the super samples themselves are I guess.
5) What the other Bill P suggested should help too - if the merge
eliminates internal blob surfaces causing the artifacts.
Hope one or more things here enough to get this cloud method working
generally.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 14:32, William F Pokorny escribió:
> Hope one or more things here enough to get this cloud method working
> generally.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but in this case the best
solution was the one the other Bill P. suggested. A merge of spheres
with same radius and placement did work pretty well, and in this case it
doesn't matter as it is an invisible container. It still does the job of
being a close container, and the speed up provided is even a little
better too.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-18c.jpg' (130 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-18c.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/28/2016 08:44 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 28/04/16 a las 14:32, William F Pokorny escribió:
>> Hope one or more things here enough to get this cloud method working
>> generally.
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation, but in this case the best
> solution was the one the other Bill P. suggested. A merge of spheres
> with same radius and placement did work pretty well, and in this case it
> doesn't matter as it is an invisible container. It still does the job of
> being a close container, and the speed up provided is even a little
> better too.
>
> --
> jaime
>
Great! At least it was one of the Bill P's helped out... :-)
Perhaps I missed it, but are these renders with 3.7.0 or that latest
3.7.1 ?
Asking because Christoph made media related fixes in 3.7.1 which in my
few experiences help both performance and result.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 15:08, William F Pokorny escribió:
> Perhaps I missed it, but are these renders with 3.7.0 or that latest
> 3.7.1 ?
3.7.1, latest alpha...
> Asking because Christoph made media related fixes in 3.7.1 which in my
> few experiences help both performance and result.
I didn't know, but yes, that must have helped too...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> El 28/04/16 a las 13:13, Simon J. Cambridge escribió:
> > I ended up using a single containing object (box or plane) and then filling it
> > with a skewed y-gradient density to get a flat bottom and then adding a mixture
> > of wrinkles, bozo and crackle (form<1, 0, 0>) to try to approximate fluffy tops.
> > Some of my images over at www.landofthefirst.com were created using this. I am
> > still not 100% happy with them.
>
> The ones at Othil Homtoh look very nice...
>
> --
> jaime
Here is the code:
#macro SkyShell(minAlt, maxAlt, Int)
difference
{
sphere {<0, 0, 0> 1000000+maxAlt}
sphere {<0, 0, 0> 1000000+minAlt}
hollow
texture {pigment {color rgbf 1}}
interior {Int}
translate <0, -1000000, 0>
}
#end
SkyShell(4000, 5000,
interior {
media {
method 3
samples 20
scattering {2, color rgb 0.0075 extinction 1}
density
{
wrinkles
scale <4000, 1000, 4000>
warp { turbulence 2 }
lambda 4
color_map
{
[0.00 color rgb 1.0]
[0.50 color rgb 0.8]
[0.55 color rgb 0.0]
[1.00 color rgb 0.0]
}
translate <-4000, 0, -1000>
}
density
{
gradient y
scale 1000
color_map
{
[0.0 color rgb 0.00]
[0.4 color rgb 1.00]
[0.9 color rgb 1.00]
[1.0 color rgb 0.00]
}
}
}
}
)
I lied. It was concentric spheres!
And nice solution for the artifacts! One to remember.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/26/2016 12:39 PM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 26/04/16 a las 15:02, Norbert Kern escribió:
>> Nice and fluffy as it should be.
>
> Thanks... perhaps too fluffy, tough.
>
>> The method of averaging object patterns will be of further use - at
>> least I hope
>> so...
>
> Well, it's nothing fancy, just the average pattern. The real trick is
> that the averaged blobs are concentric (with diminishing radius and the
> same threshold):
maybe i'm misunderstanding ... more complicated than taking the base
blob object and making scaled copies?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 19:48, Jim Holsenback escribió:
> maybe i'm misunderstanding ... more complicated than taking the base
> blob object and making scaled copies?
Just scaling down the copies only works for objects which are
symmetric on all axes. Scaling down an irregular, asymmetric blob makes
some components to be displaced towards the center, thus they get
outside the component on the original copy (and yes, I too though it
would work and tried that first... ;).
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 08:44 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed explanation, but in this case the best
> > solution was the one the other Bill P. suggested. A merge of spheres
> > with same radius and placement did work pretty well, and in this case it
> > doesn't matter as it is an invisible container. It still does the job of
> > being a close container, and the speed up provided is even a little
> > better too.
> >
>
> Great! At least it was one of the Bill P's helped out... :-)
>
> Bill P.
Haha, I keep meaning to call this out. Too many Bill Ps! At least you come up as
a William on your account name, that saves huge confusion on the digest page (I
usually use the web view).
Jaime, glad my suggestion worked well. Honestly I nearly didn't say anything, I
thought it was too obvious and that you were bound to have tried it already! I
shall wheel out random suggestions more often in that case :)
Bill (the other P)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 28/04/16 a las 21:17, Bill Pragnell escribió:
> Jaime, glad my suggestion worked well. Honestly I nearly didn't say anything, I
> thought it was too obvious and that you were bound to have tried it already! I
> shall wheel out random suggestions more often in that case :)
Nothing is too obvious, at least if I'm involved...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-4-2016 12:59, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> BTW, I've just found a way to avoid the "bottom" problem with df3
> clouds:
It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
patterns and with a gradient y density.
I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
samples 50 though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'my_makecloud2_test_day.png' (852 KB)
Preview of image 'my_makecloud2_test_day.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 30/04/16 a las 13:27, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
> left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
> safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
> samples 50 though.
That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.04.2016 um 18:26 schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> El 30/04/16 a las 13:27, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> I had to substantially increase samples to eliminate artifacts. While
>> left I could get away with samples 10, on the right - to keep on the
>> safe side - I used samples 100. I probably could easily get away with
>> samples 50 though.
>
> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
Different version?
Media sampling method 3 had various bogosities until somewhen between
3.7.0 and today.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
> original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
> patterns and with a gradient y density.
How do you achieve the atmospheric haze effect?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-4-2016 19:06, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> It makes for different types of clouds of course. Left image is the
>> original use of the df3 files as densities; right used as pigment
>> patterns and with a gradient y density.
>
> How do you achieve the atmospheric haze effect?
>
>
That is a fog. The scene is Gilles Tran's.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-4-2016 18:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
>
This is basically what I do; most other details are Gilles' original
settings (more or less):
#declare P_cloud2_1 =
pigment {density_file df3 "cloud2_1.df3"
lambda 3
omega 0.6
interpolate 1
translate -0.5
scale <1, -1, 1>
}
#declare Cloud1 =
box {-0.5,0.5
texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
hollow
interior {
media {
scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
intervals 1
samples 100, 1000
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
turbulence Turbulence*0.1
]
[1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
turbulence Turbulence*2
]
}
}
}
}
scale <4/3,1,1>
}
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, forgot to mention: version 3.7.1 alpha (blablabla) +av123
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 01/05/16 a las 08:52, Thomas de Groot escribió:
> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
The only notable difference I see is that I'm using scattering type 2
with default extinction.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2016 9:35, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> El 01/05/16 a las 08:52, Thomas de Groot escribió:
>> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
>
> The only notable difference I see is that I'm using scattering type 2
> with default extinction.
>
The solution was straightforward (see also image):
#declare Cloud1 =
box {-0.5,0.5
texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
hollow
interior {
media {
scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
intervals 1
samples 50, 1000
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
scale 50 warp {turbulence 0.1} scale 1/50
]
[1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
scale 50 warp {turbulence 2} scale 1/50
]
}
}
}
}
scale <4/3,1,1>
}
I shall try your scattering now.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'my_makecloud2_test_day_2016.png' (391 KB)
Preview of image 'my_makecloud2_test_day_2016.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-05-01 02:52, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 30-4-2016 18:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> That's strange... I'm getting good results with just 16 samples.
>>
>
> This is basically what I do; most other details are Gilles' original
> settings (more or less):
>
> #declare P_cloud2_1 =
> pigment {density_file df3 "cloud2_1.df3"
> lambda 3
> omega 0.6
> interpolate 1
> translate -0.5
> scale <1, -1, 1>
> }
>
> #declare Cloud1 =
> box {-0.5,0.5
> texture {pigment {Clear} finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0}}
> hollow
> interior {
> media {
> scattering {1, C_Sun*0.006 extinction 0.25}
> intervals 1
> samples 100, 1000
> density {
> gradient y
> density_map {
> [0 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
> turbulence Turbulence*0.1
> ]
> [1 pigment_pattern {P_cloud2_1}
> turbulence Turbulence*2
> ]
> }
> }
> }
> }
> scale <4/3,1,1>
> }
>
>
samples 100, 1000 is specific to method 1 and 2. As it is now, the 1000
is ignored.
Also, it's preferable to not set intervals at all and just use the
default of 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2016 19:00, Alain wrote:
> samples 100, 1000 is specific to method 1 and 2. As it is now, the 1000
> is ignored.
> Also, it's preferable to not set intervals at all and just use the
> default of 1.
>
>
Yes, thanks. I know this and - as it happens - just overlooked the
second samples value.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote on 28/04/2016 14.44:
> El 28/04/16 a las 14:32, William F Pokorny escribió:
>> Hope one or more things here enough to get this cloud method working
>> generally.
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation, but in this case the best
> solution was the one the other Bill P. suggested. A merge of spheres
> with same radius and placement did work pretty well, and in this case it
> doesn't matter as it is an invisible container. It still does the job of
> being a close container, and the speed up provided is even a little
> better too.
>
> --
> jaime
>
:-o
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Latest development:
+ new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
+ added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
any convincing pattern).
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-22.jpg' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-22.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-5-2016 12:38, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Latest development:
>
> + new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
> There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
>
> + added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
> pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
> any convincing pattern).
>
Looking very good indeed... I am not entirely convinced by the cirrus
layer though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/05/16 11:38, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Latest development:
>
> + new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
> There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
>
> + added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
> pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
> any convincing pattern).
>
> --
> jaime
Very convincing cumulus; however, I'm less sure about the cirrus. I
think that a clockwise rotation might fix that.
Having said that, excellent work
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ocean-22c.jpg' (142 KB)
Preview of image 'ocean-22c.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-5-2016 7:53, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
>
The wizard did it again! :-)
Yes, that is much, much better.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/05/16 06:53, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
>
> --
> jaime
You're not supposed to use a camera ;-)
Much better. Good work.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2016 um 07:53 schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
Something's still odd about this. Can't put my finger on it though.
Maybe thick low-hanging cumulus together with cirrus is a weather
situation we don't normally see?
Maybe there's a 3D-component to your cirrus clouds, whereas in reality
they seem to be quite flat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-05-04 01:53, Jaime Vives Piqueres a écrit :
> Thanks, Thomas, John... see if these cirrus look better.
>
> --
> jaime
Usualy, cirrus clouds looks rather flat due to their altitude and their
small vertical extent.
My take would be to use a plane or very large, somewhat flattened,
sphere and use an image_map. Just be sure to set that to no_shadow.
Anyway, normaly, cirrus don't cast noticeable shadows as they are so thin.
Personaly, I'v seen some cases where you have cirrus above some other
clouds formations. Even cirrus above other cirrus, in this case, it's
usualy strato-cirrus above cirrus.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 04/05/16 a las 14:07, clipka escribió:
> Something's still odd about this. Can't put my finger on it though.
>
> Maybe thick low-hanging cumulus together with cirrus is a weather
> situation we don't normally see?
Well, it's not really that strange to have cirrus over cumulus, tough
most of the time there is a clear sky over them.
> Maybe there's a 3D-component to your cirrus clouds, whereas in
> reality they seem to be quite flat?
The media shell is very thin, so I think that's not the problem. I
think it was the fact that I forgot to map them spherically, so they
don't look to be as high as they should.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 04/05/16 a las 18:30, Alain escribió:
> Usualy, cirrus clouds looks rather flat due to their altitude and
> their small vertical extent. My take would be to use a plane or very
> large, somewhat flattened, sphere and use an image_map. Just be sure
> to set that to no_shadow. Anyway, normaly, cirrus don't cast
> noticeable shadows as they are so thin.
I tried first the image map, but it was hard to match the lighting on
the photo with the sun on the scene, so I opted to use the photo as a
pattern for scattering media.
> Personaly, I'v seen some cases where you have cirrus above some other
> clouds formations.
Me too...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2016 10:52 AM, Simon J. Cambridge wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>> El 28/04/16 a las 13:13, Simon J. Cambridge escribió:
>>> I ended up using a single containing object (box or plane) and then filling it
>>> with a skewed y-gradient density to get a flat bottom and then adding a mixture
>>> of wrinkles, bozo and crackle (form<1, 0, 0>) to try to approximate fluffy tops.
>>> Some of my images over at www.landofthefirst.com were created using this. I am
>>> still not 100% happy with them.
>>
>> The ones at Othil Homtoh look very nice...
>>
>> --
>> jaime
>
> Here is the code:
>
> #macro SkyShell(minAlt, maxAlt, Int)
> difference
> {
> sphere {<0, 0, 0> 1000000+maxAlt}
> sphere {<0, 0, 0> 1000000+minAlt}
> hollow
> texture {pigment {color rgbf 1}}
> interior {Int}
> translate <0, -1000000, 0>
> }
> #end
>
> SkyShell(4000, 5000,
> interior {
> media {
> method 3
> samples 20
> scattering {2, color rgb 0.0075 extinction 1}
> density
> {
> wrinkles
> scale <4000, 1000, 4000>
> warp { turbulence 2 }
> lambda 4
> color_map
> {
> [0.00 color rgb 1.0]
> [0.50 color rgb 0.8]
> [0.55 color rgb 0.0]
> [1.00 color rgb 0.0]
> }
> translate <-4000, 0, -1000>
> }
> density
> {
> gradient y
> scale 1000
> color_map
> {
> [0.0 color rgb 0.00]
> [0.4 color rgb 1.00]
> [0.9 color rgb 1.00]
> [1.0 color rgb 0.00]
> }
> }
> }
> }
> )
>
> I lied. It was concentric spheres!
>
> And nice solution for the artifacts! One to remember.
>
>
>
>
I am having trouble adapting this code. Here's what I have:
#declare lego_units = 20; // LDU per foot
#declare earth_radius = 20900000 * lego_units;
#declare earth_circum = floor(2 * pi * earth_radius / 640) * 640;
#declare earth_radius = earth_circum/2/pi;
#declare cloud_min_radius = 6000 * lego_units;
#declare cloud_max_radius = 9000 * lego_units;
#local inner_radius = earth_radius + cloud_min_radius;
#local outer_radius = earth_radius + cloud_max_radius;
#local bound_radius = sin(acos(earth_radius/outer_radius)) * outer_radius;
#local cloud_scale = 1;
#local cloud_media = media
{
method 3
samples 20
scattering {2, color rgb 0.0075 extinction 1}
density
{
wrinkles
scale outer_radius * 300 * <1,1/4,1>
warp { turbulence 2 }
lambda 4
color_map
{
[0.00 color rgb 1.0]
[0.50 color rgb 0.8]
[0.55 color rgb 0.0]
[1.00 color rgb 0.0]
}
}
density
{
gradient y
scale (cloud_max_radius - cloud_min_radius)
color_map
{
[0.0 color rgb 0.00]
[0.4 color rgb 1.00]
[0.9 color rgb 1.00]
[1.0 color rgb 0.00]
}
}
scale 1
}
#local cloud_sphere = difference
{
sphere {0, outer_radius}
sphere {0, inner_radius}
// bounded_by {cylinder {<0,-earth_radius,0,>, <0,-outer_radius,0,>,
bound_radius}}
hollow
material
{
texture {pigment {color srgbft <1,1,1,0,1>}}
interior
{
media {cloud_media}
}
scale cloud_scale
}
translate +y * earth_radius
}
object {cloud_sphere}
However, the effect is very grainy and dark. If I continue to scale it
upward, it turns nearly black. If I scale it downward, I can't see the
clouds any more. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? Thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wrapper_townview_normal.png' (1118 KB)
Preview of image 'wrapper_townview_normal.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/22/2018 3:56 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> However, the effect is very grainy and dark. If I continue to scale it
> upward, it turns nearly black. If I scale it downward, I can't see the
> clouds any more. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? Thanks.
>
>
> Mike
Never mind. I think I have a handle on it.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/3/2016 6:38 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Latest development:
>
> + new and improved cumulus shapes using trace() over a rough base shape.
> There are 10 different clouds using 500 blob components each one.
>
> + added cirrus layer using a panoramic photograph of real clouds as
> pattern for the media density (had to "cheat" because I could not find
> any convincing pattern).
>
> --
> jaime
Does anyone have any actual code for these poofy clouds? They look so nice!
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
