 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
first off credit for the model goes here:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
here's some others i've used:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:570288
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1263333
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (746 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2017 2:42 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> first off credit for the model goes here:
> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
> selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
> format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
> are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
Nice.
How about, marble with a glass sphere inside>
> here's some others i've used:
> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:570288
> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1263333
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 2:42 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > first off credit for the model goes here:
> > https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
> > selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
> > format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
> > are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
> > can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
> How about, marble with a glass sphere inside>
Or glass filling the voids. Maybe a CSG nightmare but I sure would want to try
that.
I might never get a 3D printer but that's a great idea for a source of models.
Not that I know much of anything about it but I would expect most, if not all,
to be very "solid".
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2017 10:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 2:42 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> first off credit for the model goes here:
>> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
>> selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
>> format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
>> are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>
> Nice.
>
> How about, marble with a glass sphere inside
not a bad idea ... thanks
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/23/2017 4:12 AM, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 2:42 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> first off credit for the model goes here:
>>> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
>>> selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
>>> format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
>>> are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>> How about, marble with a glass sphere inside>
>
> Or glass filling the voids. Maybe a CSG nightmare but I sure would want to try
> that.
i've also thinking a media version ... shafts of light coming through
holes might look pretty cool too
>
> I might never get a 3D printer but that's a great idea for a source of models.
> Not that I know much of anything about it but I would expect most, if not all,
> to be very "solid".
that would indeed be a cool toy to have ... maybe i should buy lotto
ticket. if i win i could call into work rich and perhaps buy one or two!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/23/2017 12:20 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 10:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 2:42 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> first off credit for the model goes here:
>>> https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:330913 the website has a pretty good
>>> selection. the ones that i've used have been in stanford triangle
>>> format. they've also been airtight and fairly dense face count so the
>>> are great for subsurface and glass. i like this granite version ...
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>>
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> How about, marble with a glass sphere inside
>
> not a bad idea ... thanks
>
I must confess I got it from the last image on the link above.
But on reflection, <g> maybe the other way round would take longer. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/23/2017 12:31 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> Or glass filling the voids. Maybe a CSG nightmare but I sure would
>> want to try
>> that.
>
> i've also thinking a media version ... shafts of light coming through
> holes might look pretty cool too
A mirror ball with coloured spotlights?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>
> i like this granite version ...
> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
Marble/subsurface.
Very cool.
I've always wondered how a uv_map(!) could possibly be constructed for the
texture of such a shape. Seems like it would have to be done in another
space/time dimension! :-P
What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/24/2017 9:13 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> I've always wondered how a uv_map(!) could possibly be constructed for the
> texture of such a shape. Seems like it would have to be done in another
> space/time dimension!:-P
Oh! That hurts. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
Hmm, after further scientific analysis, it looks like a shoe footprint(?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 17-07-24 à 16:32, Kenneth a écrit :
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
>
> Hmm, after further scientific analysis, it looks like a shoe footprint(?)
>
>
>
Reflection, probably from an HDR background.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/24/2017 5:38 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 17-07-24 à 16:32, Kenneth a écrit :
>> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image?
>>> Very curious.
>>
>> Hmm, after further scientific analysis, it looks like a shoe footprint(?)
>>
>>
>>
> Reflection, probably from an HDR background.
yes ... abandoned paper mill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2017-07-24 04:13 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image? Very curious.
Looks like the reflection of an arched church window.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/25/2017 3:00 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> On 2017-07-24 04:13 PM (-4), Kenneth wrote:
>> What is the reflection(?) or thingy on the left side of the image?
>> Very curious.
>
> Looks like the reflection of an arched church window.
>
It does look like the reflection of a stained glass window. Especially
if you flip the image upside down.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (697 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 1:54 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
> were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
> trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
> fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
> did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
> couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
> more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
>
I like the texture and yes a bit too much translucency.
I appreciated the description and must read up on vertex weights. As I
have a model that is showing artefacts that Ctrl + N does not fix.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>
> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model that
> were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite version. much
> trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around the cut outs
> fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade smooth. blender
> did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well. i /do/ see a
> couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much translucency. a little bit
> more work and i think this one's ready for a beauty run!
>
The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>> a beauty run!
>>
>
> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
>
I thought it was the translucency that was showing up on the shadow.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 2:55 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/31/2017 7:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>>
>>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>>> a beauty run!
>>>
>>
>> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
>>
>
> I thought it was the translucency that was showing up on the shadow.
that's reflection of brick wall and part of window in hdr probe ... but
closer to object the floor is showing the translucency i was talking about
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/31/2017 2:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>
>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights around
>> the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use shade
>> smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as well.
>> i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>> a beauty run!
>>
>
> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
well i'll only take partial credit for that ... it's an image map.
getting the uv mapping correct was the challenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2017 12:34, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/31/2017 2:46 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 31-7-2017 2:54, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>>
>>> here's a marble version ... there were some problems with the model
>>> that were hidden by the procedural normal i used on the granite
>>> version. much trial and error then smoothing the vertex weights
>>> around the cut outs fixed it ... didn't even have to subdivide or use
>>> shade smooth. blender did do a pretty decent job on the uv mapping as
>>> well. i /do/ see a couple of /hot/ pixels i think a tad too much
>>> translucency. a little bit more work and i think this one's ready for
>>> a beauty run!
>>>
>>
>> The translucency looks ok to me. The marble is gorgeous.
>
> well i'll only take partial credit for that ... it's an image map.
> getting the uv mapping correct was the challenge
>
Oh! Yes, I can imagine the puzzle for this kind of object! ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
metal version while i consider my next move ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (985 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>
>
>
Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
Yes, I agree. Maybe it needs slightly 'blurred reflections.' That seems to be a
tell-tale sign of 'metal' (except for polished chrome?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
>> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
i used to shine it up before i posted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2017 4:01 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> Yes, I agree. Maybe it needs slightly 'blurred reflections.' That seems to be a
> tell-tale sign of 'metal' (except for polished chrome?)
i'm pretty sure that'll happen in version 2.0 ... i'm already working on
it. i /had/ a doh moment with the procedural normal i'm using when i
realized that with the current uv map i /should/ have used warp { planar }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-8-2017 12:46, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2017 8:54 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2017 9:42 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>>> can't decide if marble / subsurface is next ... or glass!
>>> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface so i decided to do a
>>> metal version while i consider my next move ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
> i used to shine it up before i posted
Aaah! You kept /those/ out of the camera shot! :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/08/2017 11:46, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 20-8-2017 13:38, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>
> lol ... know what you mean. guess you missed the brasso and old t-shirt
> i used to shine it up before i posted
That takes me back a few years. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/20/2017 7:38 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface
finally made some progress with that ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (776 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 8/20/2017 7:38 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface
>
> finally made some progress with that ...
Sure did. I was wondering if those red hot pixels from before might be purely a
side effect of SSS or if somehow caused by a small amount of reflection in the
texture or external object (floor).
Apparently I never asked about it before, and I can't see any reflection in
either of the marble texture renders.
Not that the other marble looked too transparent to me, like what do I know of
marble in all its possible appearances, but I can see how this one has more
solidness or perceivable larger size compared to that.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-8-2017 13:01, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/20/2017 7:38 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> well i'm struggling with the marble / subsurface
>
> finally made some progress with that ...
>
Absolutely! Much better indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
yeah ... i like this brass one mo betta
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (721 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/09/2017 21:32, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
> yeah ... i like this brass one mo betta
>
I like it too. Interesting texture. </understatement>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-9-2017 22:32, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>
> yeah ... i like this brass one mo betta
>
Yess Sir!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 21:32, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
> >> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
> >
> > yeah ... i like this brass one mo betta
> >
>
> I like it too. Interesting texture. </understatement>
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Indeed! Did you use the "finish_map" trick?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2017 3:28 AM, Mr wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 04/09/2017 21:32, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2017 3:00 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Very nice one but... I miss the imperfections: (small) scratches,
>>>> blemishes, stains, etc. Too perfect as is. ;-)
>>>
>>> yeah ... i like this brass one mo betta
>>>
>>
>> I like it too. Interesting texture. </understatement>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
> Indeed! Did you use the "finish_map" trick?
>
nope ... it's procedural. the underlying pigment is a single color with
a touch of irid ( also changed irid_wavelength in global_settings to
that color ) for the normal i used f_ridged_mf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> nope ... it's procedural. the underlying pigment is a single color with
> a touch of irid ( also changed irid_wavelength in global_settings to
> that color ) for the normal i used f_ridged_mf
I like the brass texture too.
In fact I tried to reproduce it - here is my attempt...
Perhaps you want to correct my mistakes?
global_settings {
irid_wavelength srgb <254,182,89>/255
}
texture {
pigment {color srgb <254,182,89>/255}
normal {
average
normal_map {
[1 bumps
scale 0.0175
bump_size 0.2
]
[1 bumps
scale 0.35
bump_size 0.2
]
[1 function {(f_ridged_mf ((4+x)/0.3, y/0.3, z/0.3, 0.5, 2.7, 4,
1, 1.5, 0)-1.8)*0.5}
scale 0.35
bump_size 0.3
slope_map {
[0 <0,1>]
[0.25 <1,0>]
[1 <1,0>]
}
]
}
accuracy 0.003
}
finish {
ambient 0
diffuse 0.16
specular 0.8
roughness 0.11
metallic
reflection {0.2, 0.4 metallic}
irid {0.07 thickness 0.5 turbulence 0.2}
}
}
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'materials_test24_fast2317.jpg' (533 KB)
Preview of image 'materials_test24_fast2317.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oooooh!!! Nice!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/7/2017 9:33 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>
>> nope ... it's procedural. the underlying pigment is a single color with
>> a touch of irid ( also changed irid_wavelength in global_settings to
>> that color ) for the normal i used f_ridged_mf
>
> I like the brass texture too.
> In fact I tried to reproduce it - here is my attempt...
>
> Perhaps you want to correct my mistakes?
lol ... i see no mistakes in fact i think you've improved it!
> normal {
> average
> normal_map {
> [1 bumps
> scale 0.0175
> bump_size 0.2
> ]
> [1 bumps
> scale 0.35
> bump_size 0.2
> ]
> [1 function {(f_ridged_mf ((4+x)/0.3, y/0.3, z/0.3, 0.5, 2.7, 4,
> 1, 1.5, 0)-1.8)*0.5}
> scale 0.35
> bump_size 0.3
> slope_map {
> [0 <0,1>]
> [0.25 <1,0>]
> [1 <1,0>]
> }
> ]
> }
> accuracy 0.003
> }
excellent variant ... i think i'll give it a go in my scene
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.09.2017 um 09:20 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Oooooh!!! Nice!
>
"Shiny!" is the proper exclamation in this context I guess :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/7/2017 9:33 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> I like the brass texture too.
> In fact I tried to reproduce it - here is my attempt...
i used your rmf definition then tweaked the normal map for this version ...
normal {
average
normal_map {
[1 bumps scale 0.175 bump_size 0.15]
[1 bumps scale 0.35 bump_size 0.15]
[1 function { RMF(x, y, z) } scale 0.1 bump_size 0.125 slope_map
{ [0 <0,1>] [0.25 <1,0>] [1 <1,0>] }]
}
accuracy 1e-3
scale 0.05
}
... i think it looks like cast brass that's been worked a bit.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rollysphere.png' (697 KB)
Preview of image 'rollysphere.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/9/2017 9:48 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> ... i think it looks like cast brass that's been worked a bit.
i also played some more with irid ...
irid { 0.1 thickness 0.25 turbulence 1 }
it's subtle but you can see it in a several places
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-9-2017 15:48, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> ... i think it looks like cast brass that's been worked a bit.
Yes, very good indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 9/7/2017 9:33 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> > I like the brass texture too.
> > In fact I tried to reproduce it - here is my attempt...
>
> i used your rmf definition then tweaked the normal map for this version ...
>
> ... i think it looks like cast brass that's been worked a bit.
Yes, it looks patinated.
Personally I love metal materials, but it's difficult to predict their behavior
in several scene setups.
Metals depend on their environment, reflections are more important than diffuse
settings. Metals show sharp contrasts between shadows and highlights.
Therefore I prefer hdr lighting or at least a combination of a normal
lightsource and hdr.
Here I took the nice rolly_sphere together with a more polished silvery metal
material:
#declare mtex =
texture {
pigment {color rgb <1,0.952,0.818>}
normal {facets coords 0.024 scale 0.1}
finish {
brilliance 2
specular 0.5
roughness 0.01
metallic
reflection {0.8 metallic}
ambient 0
diffuse 0.05
conserve_energy
}
}
#declare dtex =
texture {
pigment {color rgb 1}
normal {bumps 0.2 sine_wave scale 0.01}
finish {
brilliance 1
specular 0.3
roughness 0.03
reflection {0, 0.8 fresnel on}
ambient 0
diffuse 0.15
conserve_energy
}
}
#declare unnamed_material_ =
material {
texture {
pigment_pattern {
average
pigment_map {
[1 wrinkles scale 0.02]
[1 wrinkles scale 0.063]
[1 wrinkles scale 0.2]
}
}
texture_map {
[0.5 mtex]
[1 dtex]
}
}
interior {ior 2.5}
scale 10
}
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rolly_sphere_pov_scene2.jpg' (267 KB)
Preview of image 'rolly_sphere_pov_scene2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.09.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Norbert Kern:
> Here I took the nice rolly_sphere together with a more polished silvery metal
> material:
Holy moly!
That looks... quite good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Holy moly!
> That looks... quite good.
Ok for a quick test render...
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-9-2017 18:42, Norbert Kern wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Holy moly!
>> That looks... quite good.
>
>
> Ok for a quick test render...
>
More than that! It is /quite/ good.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/09/2017 07:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 12-9-2017 18:42, Norbert Kern wrote:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>>> Holy moly!
>>> That looks... quite good.
>>
>>
>> Ok for a quick test render...
>>
>
> More than that! It is /quite/ good.
>
>
Yes, it is not bad. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote on 13/09/2017 09:06:
> On 13/09/2017 07:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 12-9-2017 18:42, Norbert Kern wrote:
>>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Holy moly!
>>>> That looks... quite good.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok for a quick test render...
>>>
>>
>> More than that! It is /quite/ good.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is not bad. :-)
>
It seems very /real/
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 9/7/2017 9:33 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> > Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> >
> >> nope ... it's procedural. the underlying pigment is a single color with
> >> a touch of irid ( also changed irid_wavelength in global_settings to
> >> that color ) for the normal i used f_ridged_mf
> >
> > I like the brass texture too.
> > In fact I tried to reproduce it - here is my attempt...
> >
> > Perhaps you want to correct my mistakes?
>
> lol ... i see no mistakes in fact i think you've improved it!
>
> > normal {
> > average
> > normal_map {
> > [1 bumps
> > scale 0.0175
> > bump_size 0.2
> > ]
> > [1 bumps
> > scale 0.35
> > bump_size 0.2
> > ]
> > [1 function {(f_ridged_mf ((4+x)/0.3, y/0.3, z/0.3, 0.5, 2.7, 4,
> > 1, 1.5, 0)-1.8)*0.5}
> > scale 0.35
> > bump_size 0.3
> > slope_map {
> > [0 <0,1>]
> > [0.25 <1,0>]
> > [1 <1,0>]
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> > accuracy 0.003
> > }
>
> excellent variant ... I think I'll give it a go in my scene
It's improved only in the small sharp dented marks to me, but from afar I still
prefer the setting of your turbulence, making it look more like it has been
somewhat applied, or polished, looks more like it has a history of being
crafted, yet, combining the two would be perfect both for distant and close ups!
I hop I will be able to get a hand on the final code version so that if you guys
agree, I can share it here:
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/POV-Ray/Sample_Materials
Along the other great POV textures?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
