 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi to the crowd,
this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'thelonelyswan.jpg' (420 KB)
Preview of image 'thelonelyswan.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-2-2019 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
Phew... Michael! That is no easy matter to model! But you seem to be on
the right track already. Well done so far.
I do not understand your comment about the sharp edges using density
maps. In my experience they work pretty much like colour or texture
maps. May it be a question of scaling which troubles you? That is
something where density maps do differ I understand. Maybe a little
piece of code can clarify the matter. I am currently putting order in my
collection of media tests, so maybe I can help.
No kidding? 3 (three) weeks render time?! Wow!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 22.02.19 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
Just my mustard ;-):
The rising fog should be turbulated more, now it looks like small
straight columns of mist... and what about using Chris Colefax's
lensflare macro?
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-online de> wrote:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Best regards
> Michael
this smells like a fantastic image!
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.02.2019 um 08:42 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 22-2-2019 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>
> Phew... Michael! That is no easy matter to model! But you seem to be on
> the right track already. Well done so far.
>
> I do not understand your comment about the sharp edges using density
> maps. In my experience they work pretty much like colour or texture
> maps. May it be a question of scaling which troubles you? That is
> something where density maps do differ I understand. Maybe a little
> piece of code can clarify the matter. I am currently putting order in my
> collection of media tests, so maybe I can help.
>
> No kidding? 3 (three) weeks render time?! Wow!
>
Hi Thomas,
this time a didn't click accidentally into the image while converting it
to jpg with the GIMP, but with purpose. In the marked area you can see
the sharp edges I mean. The code was
#if(SteamFog)
#declare DensBoden1= density {
agate
agate_turb 1
density_map {
[ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
//[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
[ 0.03 rgb <0,0,0> ]
[ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
}
}
#declare DensBoden3= density {
agate
agate_turb 1
density_map {
[ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
//[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
[ 0.02 rgb <0,0,0> ]
[ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
}
scale <5,50,5>
//warp { turbulence <0.5,0.1,0.5> }
//rotate <0,90,0>
}
#declare DensLuft = density {
rgb <0,0,0>
}
box { <-150,0.001,-15>,<150.01,1,150> pigment { rgbt 1 } hollow
interior {
media {
scattering { 2, White/5 }
//absorption <0,0.25,1>
//intervals 25
samples 64
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[ 0 DensBoden1 ]
[ 0.5 DensBoden1 ]
[ 0.6 DensLuft ]
[ 1 DensLuft ]
}
scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid repetition
at height 1
warp { turbulence <0.01,0.4,0.01> }
}
}
media {
scattering { 2, White/5 }
//absorption <0,0.25,1>
//intervals 25
samples 64
density {
gradient y
density_map {
[ 0 DensBoden3 ]
[ 0.5 DensBoden3 ]
[ 0.6 DensLuft ]
[ 1 DensLuft ]
}
scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid repetition
at height 1
warp { turbulence <0.01,0.3,0.01> }
}
}
#if(GlobalFog)
media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.001 } }
#end
}
}
#if(GlobalFog)
box { <-100,1.001,-5.9>,<100,25,130> pigment { rgbt 1} hollow
interior {
media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.0001 } }
}
}
#end
#end
GlobalFog was activated. May be I have overlooked some thing or the other.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'thelonelyswan_problemzone.jpg' (421 KB)
Preview of image 'thelonelyswan_problemzone.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2019 um 19:01 schrieb Norbert Kern:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>
>
>
> this smells like a fantastic image!
>
> Norbert
>
>
>
Many thanks Norbert,
I will work at this project further, but don't expect results soon,
since the rendering is very time consuming.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.02.2019 um 10:12 schrieb Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 22.02.19 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Just my mustard ;-):
>
> The rising fog should be turbulated more, now it looks like small
> straight columns of mist... and what about using Chris Colefax's
> lensflare macro?
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar
Hi Yagdar,
the rising turbulence is just my problem (see the code I posted some
minutes earlier). I cannot see a reason to add lens flare to the image.
Especially since we have no conversion of the lens flare macros by chris
colefax to POV 3.7. They did not work with 3.7 so far. I played around
with them to solve this issue a while ago, but failed unfortunatelly.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-2-2019 20:20, MichaelJF wrote:
> Am 23.02.2019 um 08:42 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 22-2-2019 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
>>> Hi to the crowd,
>>>
>>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations
>>> to media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or
>>> density_maps different than pigment or texture having no
>>> interpolation between the map entries but shap edges. This is what I
>>> derived in a first attempt. Rendering time was a little bit longer (3
>>> weeks).
>>>
>>
>> Phew... Michael! That is no easy matter to model! But you seem to be
>> on the right track already. Well done so far.
>>
>> I do not understand your comment about the sharp edges using density
>> maps. In my experience they work pretty much like colour or texture
>> maps. May it be a question of scaling which troubles you? That is
>> something where density maps do differ I understand. Maybe a little
>> piece of code can clarify the matter. I am currently putting order in
>> my collection of media tests, so maybe I can help.
>>
>> No kidding? 3 (three) weeks render time?! Wow!
>>
> Hi Thomas,
> this time a didn't click accidentally into the image while converting it
> to jpg with the GIMP, but with purpose. In the marked area you can see
> the sharp edges I mean. The code was
>
OoooK. I see it now. I shall play with your code. Maybe I get a bright
idea ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Best regards
> Michael
Your light source don't look like from your sun
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.02.2019 um 12:15 schrieb And:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>
> Your light source don't look like from your sun
>
Hi And,
thanks. I was not clear enough. This is the first flaw I mentioned. To
be exact: sun colour and the colour of the emitting media doesn't match
so far. More or less, in this WIP the sun is just a dummy to hint at my
final intention.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
Eek.
What's the black circle in the lower left part of the render?
This is a great rising steam / mist effect :) You should do a mug of hot
coffee or something as a smaller test render. :D
I see where you're going with the blurred background - but it looks... flat.
I'm not sure if adding a wee bit of emission to it would help, or switching the
palette from rgb to srgb, or changing the gamma would help...
But for a test render, 1. you have the patience of a saint and 2. it's looking
really good
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Am 25.02.2019 um 12:15 schrieb And:
> > MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> >> Hi to the crowd,
> >>
> >> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> >> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> >> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> >> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> >> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> >> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> Michael
> >
> > Your light source don't look like from your sun
> >
> Hi And,
> thanks. I was not clear enough. This is the first flaw I mentioned. To
> be exact: sun colour and the colour of the emitting media doesn't match
> so far. More or less, in this WIP the sun is just a dummy to hint at my
> final intention.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
Uh huh, do you know how I'm aware of the problem? Because the tree is not with
its back to the light.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-2-2019 20:20, MichaelJF wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> this time a didn't click accidentally into the image while converting it
> to jpg with the GIMP, but with purpose. In the marked area you can see
> the sharp edges I mean. The code was
>
> #if(SteamFog)
> #declare DensBoden1= density {
> agate
> agate_turb 1
> density_map {
> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
> [ 0.03 rgb <0,0,0> ]
> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
> }
> }
>
> #declare DensBoden3= density {
> agate
> agate_turb 1
> density_map {
> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
> [ 0.02 rgb <0,0,0> ]
> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
> }
> scale <5,50,5>
> //warp { turbulence <0.5,0.1,0.5> }
> //rotate <0,90,0>
> }
>
> #declare DensLuft = density {
> rgb <0,0,0>
> }
> box { <-150,0.001,-15>,<150.01,1,150> pigment { rgbt 1 } hollow
> interior {
> media {
> scattering { 2, White/5 }
> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
> //intervals 25
> samples 64
> density {
> gradient y
> density_map {
> [ 0 DensBoden1 ]
> [ 0.5 DensBoden1 ]
> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
> [ 1 DensLuft ]
> }
> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid repetition
> at height 1
> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.4,0.01> }
> }
> }
> media {
> scattering { 2, White/5 }
> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
> //intervals 25
> samples 64
> density {
> gradient y
> density_map {
> [ 0 DensBoden3 ]
> [ 0.5 DensBoden3 ]
> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
> [ 1 DensLuft ]
> }
> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid repetition
> at height 1
> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.3,0.01> }
> }
> }
> #if(GlobalFog)
> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.001 } }
> #end
> }
> }
> #if(GlobalFog)
> box { <-100,1.001,-5.9>,<100,25,130> pigment { rgbt 1} hollow
> interior {
> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.0001 } }
> }
> }
> #end
> #end
>
> GlobalFog was activated. May be I have overlooked some thing or the other.
>
My first tests of your code confirms me that the sharp edge is the
result of the container boundary, not of any different behaviour of density.
I want to test different options yet.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.02.2019 um 05:13 schrieb And:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> Am 25.02.2019 um 12:15 schrieb And:
>>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>>> Hi to the crowd,
>>>>
>>>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>>>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>>>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>>>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>>>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>>>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Your light source don't look like from your sun
>>>
>> Hi And,
>> thanks. I was not clear enough. This is the first flaw I mentioned. To
>> be exact: sun colour and the colour of the emitting media doesn't match
>> so far. More or less, in this WIP the sun is just a dummy to hint at my
>> final intention.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>
> Uh huh, do you know how I'm aware of the problem? Because the tree is not with
> its back to the light.
>
Hi And,
there are only two light_sources within the scene. The emitting media
representing the sun and a second miles behind it, but in the same
direction (in front of the camera). The backside illumination of the
trees comes from the reflections of the overall present scattering media
and the use of radiosity.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.02.2019 um 22:54 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>
>
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Eek.
>
> What's the black circle in the lower left part of the render?
>
> This is a great rising steam / mist effect :) You should do a mug of hot
> coffee or something as a smaller test render. :D
>
> I see where you're going with the blurred background - but it looks... flat.
> I'm not sure if adding a wee bit of emission to it would help, or switching the
> palette from rgb to srgb, or changing the gamma would help...
>
> But for a test render, 1. you have the patience of a saint and 2. it's looking
> really good
>
Thanks Bald Eagle,
the black spot is an accident while convertig the image to jpg with the
GIMP. I accidentally clicked into the image with an active pen and
noticed it after the posting.
I will look at my mug tomorrow, but I think it is a steam different to
the one I observed at the moselle last may completely. Anyway, this
would not solve the issue with the rendering time, because the media
will scale with the scene.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Hi to the crowd,
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
as has been said already, that is _some_ image in the making. (almost expected
a mansion at the end of the "boating lake" :-)).
agree that the (sun) colour isn't quite right, too .. vibrant, the overall
"feel" is too warm to expect to see vapour rising into cool/colder air. also,
still just IMO, the sun is a touch high.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.02.2019 um 11:15 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 24-2-2019 20:20, MichaelJF wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> this time a didn't click accidentally into the image while converting
>> it to jpg with the GIMP, but with purpose. In the marked area you can
>> see the sharp edges I mean. The code was
>>
>> #if(SteamFog)
>> #declare DensBoden1= density {
>> agate
>> agate_turb 1
>> density_map {
>> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
>> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
>> [ 0.03 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>> }
>> }
>>
>> #declare DensBoden3= density {
>> agate
>> agate_turb 1
>> density_map {
>> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
>> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
>> [ 0.02 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>> }
>> scale <5,50,5>
>> //warp { turbulence <0.5,0.1,0.5> }
>> //rotate <0,90,0>
>> }
>>
>> #declare DensLuft = density {
>> rgb <0,0,0>
>> }
>> box { <-150,0.001,-15>,<150.01,1,150> pigment { rgbt 1 } hollow
>> interior {
>> media {
>> scattering { 2, White/5 }
>> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
>> //intervals 25
>> samples 64
>> density {
>> gradient y
>> density_map {
>> [ 0 DensBoden1 ]
>> [ 0.5 DensBoden1 ]
>> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
>> [ 1 DensLuft ]
>> }
>> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid
repetition
>> at height 1
>> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.4,0.01> }
>> }
>> }
>> media {
>> scattering { 2, White/5 }
>> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
>> //intervals 25
>> samples 64
>> density {
>> gradient y
>> density_map {
>> [ 0 DensBoden3 ]
>> [ 0.5 DensBoden3 ]
>> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
>> [ 1 DensLuft ]
>> }
>> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid
repetition
>> at height 1
>> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.3,0.01> }
>> }
>> }
>> #if(GlobalFog)
>> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.001 } }
>> #end
>> }
>> }
>> #if(GlobalFog)
>> box { <-100,1.001,-5.9>,<100,25,130> pigment { rgbt 1} hollow
>> interior {
>> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.0001 } }
>> }
>> }
>> #end
>> #end
>>
>> GlobalFog was activated. May be I have overlooked some thing or the
>> other.
>>
>
> My first tests of your code confirms me that the sharp edge is the
> result of the container boundary, not of any different behaviour of
> density.
>
> I want to test different options yet.
>
Hm,
the problem seems to be within the second media statement (the first
produces some ground noise only). The container boundary is at level y=1
(y is up here). The transition between DensBoden3 and DensLuft(=nothing)
is between 0.5 and 0.6 scaled to 1 and 1.2 but then translated to 0.5
and 0.7 which is beneath the container boundary for sure.
Many thanks
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-2-2019 19:48, MichaelJF wrote:
> Am 26.02.2019 um 11:15 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 24-2-2019 20:20, MichaelJF wrote:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>> this time a didn't click accidentally into the image while converting
>>> it to jpg with the GIMP, but with purpose. In the marked area you can
>>> see the sharp edges I mean. The code was
>>>
>>> #if(SteamFog)
>>> #declare DensBoden1= density {
>>> agate
>>> agate_turb 1
>>> density_map {
>>> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
>>> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
>>> [ 0.03 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>>> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> #declare DensBoden3= density {
>>> agate
>>> agate_turb 1
>>> density_map {
>>> [ 0 rgb <1,1,1>/5 ]
>>> //[ 0.02 rgb <1,1,1> ]
>>> [ 0.02 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>>> [ 1 rgb <0,0,0> ]
>>> }
>>> scale <5,50,5>
>>> //warp { turbulence <0.5,0.1,0.5> }
>>> //rotate <0,90,0>
>>> }
>>>
>>> #declare DensLuft = density {
>>> rgb <0,0,0>
>>> }
>>> box { <-150,0.001,-15>,<150.01,1,150> pigment { rgbt 1 } hollow
>>> interior {
>>> media {
>>> scattering { 2, White/5 }
>>> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
>>> //intervals 25
>>> samples 64
>>> density {
>>> gradient y
>>> density_map {
>>> [ 0 DensBoden1 ]
>>> [ 0.5 DensBoden1 ]
>>> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
>>> [ 1 DensLuft ]
>>> }
>>> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid
>>> repetition at height 1
>>> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.4,0.01> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> media {
>>> scattering { 2, White/5 }
>>> //absorption <0,0.25,1>
>>> //intervals 25
>>> samples 64
>>> density {
>>> gradient y
>>> density_map {
>>> [ 0 DensBoden3 ]
>>> [ 0.5 DensBoden3 ]
>>> [ 0.6 DensLuft ]
>>> [ 1 DensLuft ]
>>> }
>>> scale <1,2,1> translate <0,-0.5,0> // avoid
>>> repetition at height 1
>>> warp { turbulence <0.01,0.3,0.01> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> #if(GlobalFog)
>>> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.001 } }
>>> #end
>>> }
>>> }
>>> #if(GlobalFog)
>>> box { <-100,1.001,-5.9>,<100,25,130> pigment { rgbt 1} hollow
>>> interior {
>>> media { scattering {2, White/5 } density { rgb 0.0001 } }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> #end
>>> #end
>>>
>>> GlobalFog was activated. May be I have overlooked some thing or the
>>> other.
>>>
>>
>> My first tests of your code confirms me that the sharp edge is the
>> result of the container boundary, not of any different behaviour of
>> density.
>>
>> I want to test different options yet.
>>
> Hm,
> the problem seems to be within the second media statement (the first
> produces some ground noise only). The container boundary is at level y=1
> (y is up here). The transition between DensBoden3 and DensLuft(=nothing)
> is between 0.5 and 0.6 scaled to 1 and 1.2 but then translated to 0.5
> and 0.7 which is beneath the container boundary for sure.
>
I have yet to test the second media I confess. ;-)
Something interesting to do [hint] is to put the density scale /after/
the warp{turbulence}. Makes things a bit complicated but worth the
experiment.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-2-2019 19:48, MichaelJF wrote:
> Hm,
> the problem seems to be within the second media statement (the first
> produces some ground noise only). The container boundary is at level y=1
> (y is up here). The transition between DensBoden3 and DensLuft(=nothing)
> is between 0.5 and 0.6 scaled to 1 and 1.2 but then translated to 0.5
> and 0.7 which is beneath the container boundary for sure.
>
Ok. I think I got it. The solution seems to be really simple. In both
media's density maps change:
density_map {
[ 0 DensBoden1 ]
[ 0.45 DensBoden1 ] //original: 0.5
[ 0.55 DensLuft ] //original: 0.6
[ 1 DensLuft ]
}
density_map {
[ 0 DensBoden3 ]
[ 0.45 DensBoden3 ] //original: 0.5
[ 0.55 DensLuft ] //original: 0.6
[ 1 DensLuft ]
}
That is all. If you want to increase the diffuseness, you can always
increase the distance between the two values, e.g. 0.35 --> 0.55. But I
would advise not to go higher than approximately 0.55.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A small test image with the corrected settings. What appears to be the
horizon is in reality the semitransparent bounding box, the camera being
situated just a tiny bit above it. The mist strands do not touch that
upper boundary but be aware that their extension upward is controlled by
the warp{turbulence} of 0.4 for the y-direction. So, it is a bit tricky
to find the correct values for the density map without the strands
piercing the container.
Samples may be a bit low as there are some artifacts visible but I
wouldn't change it as in your scene they would be hidden by the water
texture.
I have used here a somewhat denser scattering colour and also scattering
mode 5 which I often prefer, here with excentricity 0.5.
For this small scene, render time was about 30 minutes.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'media mist_test.png' (245 KB)
Preview of image 'media mist_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF wrote on 22/02/2019 20:04:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
A beautiful and peacefulness image!
Perhaps the cane thicket at bottom right are too bright. And it might be
nice to see birds flying in the distance.
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19-02-27 à 03:55, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> A small test image with the corrected settings. What appears to be the
> horizon is in reality the semitransparent bounding box, the camera being
> situated just a tiny bit above it. The mist strands do not touch that
> upper boundary but be aware that their extension upward is controlled by
> the warp{turbulence} of 0.4 for the y-direction. So, it is a bit tricky
> to find the correct values for the density map without the strands
> piercing the container.
>
> Samples may be a bit low as there are some artifacts visible but I
> wouldn't change it as in your scene they would be hidden by the water
> texture.
>
> I have used here a somewhat denser scattering colour and also scattering
> mode 5 which I often prefer, here with excentricity 0.5.
>
> For this small scene, render time was about 30 minutes.
>
When using turbulence, a rule of thumb is to assume that the area gets
enlarged by the turbulence value.
If you use turbulence 0.4, then, what was at 1 should be assumed to get
displaced between 0.6 and 1.4, and up to 2 for turbulence 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2019 um 09:55 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> A small test image with the corrected settings. What appears to be the
> horizon is in reality the semitransparent bounding box, the camera being
> situated just a tiny bit above it. The mist strands do not touch that
> upper boundary but be aware that their extension upward is controlled by
> the warp{turbulence} of 0.4 for the y-direction. So, it is a bit tricky
> to find the correct values for the density map without the strands
> piercing the container.
>
> Samples may be a bit low as there are some artifacts visible but I
> wouldn't change it as in your scene they would be hidden by the water
> texture.
>
> I have used here a somewhat denser scattering colour and also scattering
> mode 5 which I often prefer, here with excentricity 0.5.
>
> For this small scene, render time was about 30 minutes.
>
Hello Thomas,
many, many thanks for your efforts and for solving this problem. I was
on the wrong track. There is another issue with media and sharp edges I
experienced playing around with the emitting media simulating the sun in
this image and expected a similiar problem with the fog. But these two
problems are different issues completely. As Alain confirms your results
one has to consider the amount of turbulence while calculating the
scaling of the media or the boundaries of the container object
additionally.
I will depict the other issue ASAP. At the moment it is at 39% after
some 5 hours of rendering. In this case the container cannot prove a
problem since it is much larger than the media and a box and not a
sphere. I fear it is one of the problems arising from the prescision
settings within POV to deal with the trade off between precision and
rendering time.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.02.2019 um 11:25 schrieb Paolo Gibellini:
> MichaelJF wrote on 22/02/2019 20:04:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
> A beautiful and peacefulness image!
> Perhaps the cane thicket at bottom right are too bright. And it might be
> nice to see birds flying in the distance.
> ;-)
> Paolo
Many thanks Paolo,
it is a first WIP to demonstrate my idea how one can model steam fog
with POV. And as you can see from the discussion here it is far away
from being ready. I will consider your idea of birds in the distance. I
simply could copy them from another picture I made in the past where I
had a formation of cranes in the far distance. But first I would prefer
a more realistic sunrise with a better sky sphere and a better simulated
sun.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-2-2019 17:39, Alain wrote:
> Le 19-02-27 à 03:55, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> A small test image with the corrected settings. What appears to be the
>> horizon is in reality the semitransparent bounding box, the camera
>> being situated just a tiny bit above it. The mist strands do not touch
>> that upper boundary but be aware that their extension upward is
>> controlled by the warp{turbulence} of 0.4 for the y-direction. So, it
>> is a bit tricky to find the correct values for the density map without
>> the strands piercing the container.
>>
>> Samples may be a bit low as there are some artifacts visible but I
>> wouldn't change it as in your scene they would be hidden by the water
>> texture.
>>
>> I have used here a somewhat denser scattering colour and also
>> scattering mode 5 which I often prefer, here with excentricity 0.5.
>>
>> For this small scene, render time was about 30 minutes.
>>
>
> When using turbulence, a rule of thumb is to assume that the area gets
> enlarged by the turbulence value.
>
> If you use turbulence 0.4, then, what was at 1 should be assumed to get
> displaced between 0.6 and 1.4, and up to 2 for turbulence 1.
Exactly! Thanks for the precision given. This was one of the reasons why
I gave the hint to try to put the scaling /after/ the warp {turbulence}.
I didn't pursue that path too far though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I commented the steam fog approximation out, so it rendered a little bit
faster. One sees two instances of the same object (it is the example
from the tutorials shipped with POV but in a box {-2,2 } instead of a
sphere). The only difference is
object { Sonne
scale <500,500,500>*5
translate MediaPos
}
object { Sonne
translate <3,1,5>
}
with MediaPos=< 649.685959 , 1442.616855 , 39968.697311 >
Obviously I will not use it in my scene. It's just a riddle I
encountered by chance. I played a little bit with intervals, samples,
variance, confidence but without any success. It seems to be due to the
scaling alone.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'twoinstancesofaemittingmedia.jpg' (555 KB)
Preview of image 'twoinstancesofaemittingmedia.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-2-2019 19:25, MichaelJF wrote:
> I commented the steam fog approximation out, so it rendered a little bit
> faster. One sees two instances of the same object (it is the example
> from the tutorials shipped with POV but in a box {-2,2 } instead of a
> sphere). The only difference is
>
> object { Sonne
> scale <500,500,500>*5
> translate MediaPos
> }
>
> object { Sonne
> translate <3,1,5>
> }
>
> with MediaPos=< 649.685959 , 1442.616855 , 39968.697311 >
>
> Obviously I will not use it in my scene. It's just a riddle I
> encountered by chance. I played a little bit with intervals, samples,
> variance, confidence but without any success. It seems to be due to the
> scaling alone.
>
My immediate reaction to this would be: "Did you take the scaling into
account in the media build of Sonne?"
You need to do the following /essential/ operation, for the first
instance, concerning the emission and, if applicable, scattering and
absorption:
#local MediaScale = <500, 500, 500>*5;
sphere {<0,0,0>, 1 //or a box of course
hollow
pigment {rgbt 1}
interior {
media {
samples 50
emission <0.8, 0.8, 0.8>/MediaScale
scattering {1, rgb <0.1, 0.1, 0.1>/MediaScale}
density {
spherical
density_map {
[0.20 rgb 0.0]
[1.00 rgb 1.0]
}
}
}
}
scale MediaScale
}
This is explained in the docs btw in 2.3.7.5 Media and transformations.
I think that lies at the root of your problem.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
thanks again. May be I read this section some years ago but it did not
came into my mind. The only problem was, that it led me to a wrong track
regarding the container issues with the steam fog approximation. I will
not use an emitting media as sun but will follow an approach by Johannes
Eriksson (May-June competition of the IRTC in 2006). But this is a
legacy scene and the conversion is not as simple as I expected.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19-02-28 à 13:25, MichaelJF a écrit :
> I commented the steam fog approximation out, so it rendered a little bit
> faster. One sees two instances of the same object (it is the example
> from the tutorials shipped with POV but in a box {-2,2 } instead of a
> sphere). The only difference is
>
> object { Sonne
> scale <500,500,500>*5
> translate MediaPos
> }
>
> object { Sonne
> translate <3,1,5>
> }
>
> with MediaPos=< 649.685959 , 1442.616855 , 39968.697311 >
>
> Obviously I will not use it in my scene. It's just a riddle I
> encountered by chance. I played a little bit with intervals, samples,
> variance, confidence but without any success. It seems to be due to the
> scaling alone.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
Hints :
Don't change intervals from the default of 1. Higher intervals count =
slower render and may introduce artifacts.
Variance and confidence are used for sampling methods 1 and 2, and are
not used with method 3 (default).
If you use two value for samples, the second will be silently ignored
when using method 3.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hints :
>
> Don't change intervals from the default of 1. Higher intervals count =
> slower render and may introduce artifacts.
>
> Variance and confidence are used for sampling methods 1 and 2, and are
> not used with method 3 (default).
>
> If you use two value for samples, the second will be silently ignored
> when using method 3.
Many thanks, I think this issues should be stated in the docs more clearly.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.02.2019 um 20:43 schrieb MichaelJF:
> Am 23.02.2019 um 10:12 schrieb Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann:
>> Hi(gh)!
>>
>> On 22.02.19 20:04, MichaelJF wrote:
>>> Hi to the crowd,
>>>
>>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations
>>> to media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or
>>> density_maps different than pigment or texture having no
>>> interpolation between the map entries but shap edges. This is what I
>>> derived in a first attempt. Rendering time was a little bit longer (3
>>> weeks).
>>
>> Just my mustard ;-):
>>
>> The rising fog should be turbulated more, now it looks like small
>> straight columns of mist... and what about using Chris Colefax's
>> lensflare macro?
>>
>> See you in Khyberspace!
>>
>> Yadgar
> Hi Yagdar,
> the rising turbulence is just my problem (see the code I posted some
> minutes earlier). I cannot see a reason to add lens flare to the image.
> Especially since we have no conversion of the lens flare macros by chris
> colefax to POV 3.7. They did not work with 3.7 so far. I played around
> with them to solve this issue a while ago, but failed unfortunatelly.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
After looking at a lot of photographies of sundowns and sunrises again I
now understand your recommendation of the lens flare macros. But they
are still resistant to my conversion efforts. To chance ambient by
emission simply doesn't work here. If you study his disc approach it
should work, but there seems to be a hidden secret I have not detected
so far. With Jaime's lightsys this simple exchange works.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.02.2019 um 20:04 schrieb MichaelJF:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
Hi to the crowd again,
since I lost all the code of the original approach of this image due to
a headcrash, I had to restart this scene from scratch. Only the
erroneous density I posted here was left and the corrections Thomas and
Alain proposed of course. Here is the actual WIP. I wondered how a white
sun can cast yellow beams, but I took this RL image
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenaufgang#/media/Datei:Sonnenaufgang_penon_de_ifach.jpg
as a basis for the sky_sphere, the sun, and its reflections. I failed to
model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
I plan to add some pines, cattails, gras, broom, and the swan of course,
but nothing more. The steam fog over land will be invisible after the
addition of the plants (hope so). Additional suggestions are welcome as
ever.
At the moment the rendering time is manageable: some hour with 16
threads at 3.6 GHz (intel core i9).
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'gelaende_pov_scene13.png' (849 KB)
Preview of image 'gelaende_pov_scene13.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> I failed to
> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the water's surface?
Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other graphics
groups...
Great job so far! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> I failed to
>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>
> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the water's surface?
> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>
> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other graphics
> groups...
>
> Great job so far! :)
>
>
>
Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was: Tom
York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his comment in the
following thread:
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.08.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>> I failed to
>>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>>
>> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the water's
>> surface?
>> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>>
>> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other
>> graphics
>> groups...
>>
>> Great job so far! :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was: Tom
> York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his comment in the
> following thread:
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
>
>
Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust the
media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by another
one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a texture_map
to the lake similiar to the construction of my sky_sphere. Fortunatelly
air has no ripples or waves and is more predictable as water. May be I
must have more patience in modellng a filtering disc with a proper
scaled hole
disc {
0,z,20000, unkown hole size
pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
translate SolarPosition/10000
no_image no_reflection
}
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 17/08/2020 om 19:11 schreef MichaelJF:
> Am 17.08.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
>>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>>> I failed to
>>>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>>>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>>>
>>> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the water's
>>> surface?
>>> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>>>
>>> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other
>>> graphics
>>> groups...
>>>
>>> Great job so far! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was: Tom
>> York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his comment in
>> the following thread:
>>
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
>>
>>
> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust the
> media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by another
> one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a texture_map
> to the lake similiar to the construction of my sky_sphere. Fortunatelly
> air has no ripples or waves and is more predictable as water. May be I
> must have more patience in modellng a filtering disc with a proper
> scaled hole
>
> disc {
> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
> translate SolarPosition/10000
> no_image no_reflection
> }
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
Best approach I guess is the one made by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I have
been working with his code lately for a couple of months (adding foam to
sea water for instance; see my 'Nature Beyond' thread).
See the following link for the technical aspects:
http://www.ignorancia.org/index.php/galleries/old-images/sea-buoy/
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2020-08-17 à 13:11, MichaelJF a écrit :
> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust the
> media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by another
> one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a texture_map
> to the lake similiar to the construction of my sky_sphere. Fortunatelly
> air has no ripples or waves and is more predictable as water. May be I
> must have more patience in modellng a filtering disc with a proper
> scaled hole
>
> disc {
> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
> translate SolarPosition/10000
> no_image no_reflection
> }
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
When working with disc, don't forget that they have an interior that is
not limited to the visible part.
Whenever you have media, you need to add hollow to any disc in the scene.
This :
disc{0 y 10}
have the same interior as this :
plane{y 0}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.08.2020 um 19:46 schrieb Alain Martel:
> Le 2020-08-17 à 13:11, MichaelJF a écrit :
>
>> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
>> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust
>> the media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by
>> another one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a
>> texture_map to the lake similiar to the construction of my sky_sphere.
>> Fortunatelly air has no ripples or waves and is more predictable as
>> water. May be I must have more patience in modellng a filtering disc
>> with a proper scaled hole
>>
>> disc {
>> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
>> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
>> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
>> translate SolarPosition/10000
>> no_image no_reflection
>> }
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>
> When working with disc, don't forget that they have an interior that is
> not limited to the visible part.
> Whenever you have media, you need to add hollow to any disc in the scene.
>
> This :
> disc{0 y 10}
> have the same interior as this :
> plane{y 0}
Many thanks,
yes I tested the approach with the disk without the media. I added the
media later.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.08.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Op 17/08/2020 om 19:11 schreef MichaelJF:
>> Am 17.08.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
>>>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>>>> I failed to
>>>>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>>>>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the
>>>> water's surface?
>>>> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>>>>
>>>> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other
>>>> graphics
>>>> groups...
>>>>
>>>> Great job so far! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was:
>>> Tom York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his comment
>>> in the following thread:
>>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
>> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust
>> the media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by
>> another one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a
>> texture_map to the lake similiar to the construction of my sky_sphere.
>> Fortunatelly air has no ripples or waves and is more predictable as
>> water. May be I must have more patience in modellng a filtering disc
>> with a proper scaled hole
>>
>> disc {
>> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
>> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
>> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
>> translate SolarPosition/10000
>> no_image no_reflection
>> }
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>
> Best approach I guess is the one made by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I have
> been working with his code lately for a couple of months (adding foam to
> sea water for instance; see my 'Nature Beyond' thread).
>
> See the following link for the technical aspects:
>
> http://www.ignorancia.org/index.php/galleries/old-images/sea-buoy/
>
Hello Thomas,
you did a very good job in adding foam to Jaime's sea and added a very
nice whale. First I tried an isosurface similiar to Jaime's approach but
I decided against it since it looked to much like sea with storms and
tides and so on and not like a quiet lake.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 18/08/2020 om 20:17 schreef MichaelJF:
> Am 18.08.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Op 17/08/2020 om 19:11 schreef MichaelJF:
>>> Am 17.08.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>> Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
>>>>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>>>>> I failed to
>>>>>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>>>>>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the
>>>>> water's surface?
>>>>> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in other
>>>>> graphics
>>>>> groups...
>>>>>
>>>>> Great job so far! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was:
>>>> Tom York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his
>>>> comment in the following thread:
>>>>
>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
>>> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust
>>> the media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by
>>> another one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a
>>> texture_map to the lake similiar to the construction of my
>>> sky_sphere. Fortunatelly air has no ripples or waves and is more
>>> predictable as water. May be I must have more patience in modellng a
>>> filtering disc with a proper scaled hole
>>>
>>> disc {
>>> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
>>> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
>>> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
>>> translate SolarPosition/10000
>>> no_image no_reflection
>>> }
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> Best approach I guess is the one made by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I have
>> been working with his code lately for a couple of months (adding foam
>> to sea water for instance; see my 'Nature Beyond' thread).
>>
>> See the following link for the technical aspects:
>>
>> http://www.ignorancia.org/index.php/galleries/old-images/sea-buoy/
>>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> you did a very good job in adding foam to Jaime's sea and added a very
> nice whale. First I tried an isosurface similiar to Jaime's approach but
> I decided against it since it looked to much like sea with storms and
> tides and so on and not like a quiet lake.
>
I am beginning to wonder if I understand your problem correctly. It is
the reflection of the Sun's disk on the water surface, isn't it? If so,
this is solved very nicely imo by the finish block of the water and the
finish block only. Jaime uses the following code for his (sea) water
surface:
finish { // borrowed from Christoph Hormann
diffuse 0.5
reflection {
0.0, 1.0
fresnel on
falloff 1
}
conserve_energy
specular 0.8
roughness 0.0035
}
The use of this results in the image attached. My earlier suggestion
about Tom York's diffuse modulation works well on opaque surfaces. I
realise now that it would be difficult to implement correctly on a water
surface.
I am sorry if I confused you with information not entirely up to the point.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'jvp_sea_kw4.png' (517 KB)
Preview of image 'jvp_sea_kw4.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 19.08.2020 um 08:38 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Op 18/08/2020 om 20:17 schreef MichaelJF:
>> Am 18.08.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> Op 17/08/2020 om 19:11 schreef MichaelJF:
>>>> Am 17.08.2020 um 08:45 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>>>> Op 16/08/2020 om 18:27 schreef Bald Eagle:
>>>>>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>>>>>> I failed to
>>>>>>> model this thin slice of white in the reflections in the original
>>>>>>> photography so far. But I think to "forget" it, is a venial sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you can add a cylinder of media that is bisected by the
>>>>>> water's surface?
>>>>>> Or layer an AOI texture onto the water?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other than that, I'd look to prior art in the archives, or in
>>>>>> other graphics
>>>>>> groups...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great job so far! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great job indeed. First thing I thought concerning this issue was:
>>>>> Tom York's diffuse modulation. Maybe it can help you: see his
>>>>> comment in the following thread:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3Cweb.4393311ed86e519e4114da700@news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=338362&toff=650
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you both for your suggestions. May be the addition of an other
>>>> media may cure the problem but I had a lot of difficulties to adjust
>>>> the media as they are so far and will not risk to disturb them by
>>>> another one. The other approach proposed by Thomas is the use of a
>>>> texture_map to the lake similiar to the construction of my
>>>> sky_sphere. Fortunatelly air has no ripples or waves and is more
>>>> predictable as water. May be I must have more patience in modellng a
>>>> filtering disc with a proper scaled hole
>>>>
>>>> disc {
>>>> 0,z,20000, unkown hole size
>>>> pigment { colour srgbf <1,0.847,0.333,1> }
>>>> rotate <0,0,-90-degrees(acos(vnormalize(SolarPosition).z))>
>>>> translate SolarPosition/10000
>>>> no_image no_reflection
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>> Best approach I guess is the one made by Jaime Vives Piqueres. I have
>>> been working with his code lately for a couple of months (adding foam
>>> to sea water for instance; see my 'Nature Beyond' thread).
>>>
>>> See the following link for the technical aspects:
>>>
>>> http://www.ignorancia.org/index.php/galleries/old-images/sea-buoy/
>>>
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> you did a very good job in adding foam to Jaime's sea and added a very
>> nice whale. First I tried an isosurface similiar to Jaime's approach
>> but I decided against it since it looked to much like sea with storms
>> and tides and so on and not like a quiet lake.
>>
>
> I am beginning to wonder if I understand your problem correctly. It is
> the reflection of the Sun's disk on the water surface, isn't it? If so,
> this is solved very nicely imo by the finish block of the water and the
> finish block only. Jaime uses the following code for his (sea) water
> surface:
>
> finish { // borrowed from Christoph Hormann
> diffuse 0.5
> reflection {
> 0.0, 1.0
> fresnel on
> falloff 1
> }
> conserve_energy
> specular 0.8
> roughness 0.0035
> }
>
> The use of this results in the image attached. My earlier suggestion
> about Tom York's diffuse modulation works well on opaque surfaces. I
> realise now that it would be difficult to implement correctly on a water
> surface.
>
> I am sorry if I confused you with information not entirely up to the point.
>
Hi Thomas,
if you look at the photography from the wikipedia you will notice a very
small area of white reflections from the sun from the horizon to the
middle of the reflections at the sea. But I overlooked that in my image
I have a very different angle (sun and camera are at a very lower level)
between sun and camera. If I lift the camera in this scene from y=1 to
y=10 POV displayed the white reflections at the sea. In my setting they
coinside to happen at the land area. Sorry that I led you on a wrong
track. But many thanks anyway.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 19/08/2020 om 19:52 schreef MichaelJF:
> Hi Thomas,
> if you look at the photography from the wikipedia you will notice a very
> small area of white reflections from the sun from the horizon to the
> middle of the reflections at the sea. But I overlooked that in my image
> I have a very different angle (sun and camera are at a very lower level)
> between sun and camera. If I lift the camera in this scene from y=1 to
> y=10 POV displayed the white reflections at the sea. In my setting they
> coinside to happen at the land area. Sorry that I led you on a wrong
> track. But many thanks anyway.
>
My goodness! I confess I can hardly see that narrow band and without you
mentioning it I would have missed it entirely. That is another kettle of
fish indeed. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.02.2019 um 20:04 schrieb MichaelJF:
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
Hi to the crowd,
here is the final image of my approach to model steam fog. Having lost
all the code from my first postings here, the image developed into
another direction, but I like it better now. May be it can need a little
bit higher amount of dof, but I will not change this so far. Not to hide
some flaws of the Xfrog trees but for the general mood of the image.
In fact, I have no idea if the images of a sunrise are very different
from the images of a sundown. But if I prefer a certain region of this
planet where this scene could be located and where I observed a similiar
scene several years ago, than it must be a sundown because it was a look
to the west. Close to the atlantic ocean a little bit north to the Dune
of Pilat, France. 1985, I rode a bicycle (crafted by myself and not an
engine) from Paris to Orleans, and then along the Loire and to Bordeaux
finally. I remember similiar scences from this journey.
Since swans like to order their feathers with their beaks, I posed the
swan in wings slightly. It was an unrigged free model I found at
https://free3d.com/3d-model/mute-swan-v1--619725.html
The author used the pseudonym "`printable\_models"'.
All plants were modelled with the trial version of Xfrog. If you work
through their tutorials you can create very realistic plants, but there
are still some flaws (obviously repeated textures exp. leafs).
In this image I used the Goldenrod-tutorial by Xfrog but placed scans
from a rotten one I found in a park nearby as textures. The cattails
(Typha latifolia) and trees (Pinus pinaster, the maritime or cluster
pine) I modelled with Xfrog without much help from them. The lower part
of the stem of the pines I modelled after their tree tutorial.
To have a little bit more light in the foreground I misused radiosity by
putting a great gray wall (colour White/2) 20 units (meters) behind the
camera to have some diffuse reflections against the sun. A white wall
was a little bit to bright IMO.
A very important point was to turn off the media interaction within the
radiosity block. In my first image here - the lost approach from last
year - it was turned on and And asked for a second light source. One
ever learns, and Ands question let to the solutionn of this riddle finally.
Render took 12 days, 17 hours and 25 minutes at an Intel Core i9@3.6 Ghz
using all 16 Threats.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '20201020_thelonelyswan.jpg' (658 KB)
Preview of image '20201020_thelonelyswan.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2020-10-20 à 13:05, MichaelJF a écrit :
> Am 22.02.2019 um 20:04 schrieb MichaelJF:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> In fact, I have no idea if the images of a sunrise are very different
> from the images of a sundown. But if I prefer a certain region of this
> planet where this scene could be located and where I observed a similiar
> scene several years ago, than it must be a sundown because it was a look
> to the west. Close to the atlantic ocean a little bit north to the Dune
> of Pilat, France. 1985, I rode a bicycle (crafted by myself and not an
> engine) from Paris to Orleans, and then along the Loire and to Bordeaux
> finally. I remember similiar scences from this journey.
>
Sun rise tend to have a clearer sky and more ground fog.
Sun set tend to not have any fog, but dirtier sky with more smoke and
air borne dust.
This is definitely a Sun rise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.10.2020 um 20:38 schrieb Alain Martel:
> Le 2020-10-20 à 13:05, MichaelJF a écrit :
>> Am 22.02.2019 um 20:04 schrieb MichaelJF:
>>> Hi to the crowd,
>>>
>>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations
>>> to media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or
>>> density_maps different than pigment or texture having no
>>> interpolation between the map entries but shap edges. This is what I
>>> derived in a first attempt. Rendering time was a little bit longer (3
>>> weeks).
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> In fact, I have no idea if the images of a sunrise are very different
>> from the images of a sundown. But if I prefer a certain region of this
>> planet where this scene could be located and where I observed a
>> similiar scene several years ago, than it must be a sundown because it
>> was a look to the west. Close to the atlantic ocean a little bit north
>> to the Dune of Pilat, France. 1985, I rode a bicycle (crafted by
>> myself and not an engine) from Paris to Orleans, and then along the
>> Loire and to Bordeaux finally. I remember similiar scences from this
>> journey.
>>
> Sun rise tend to have a clearer sky and more ground fog.
> Sun set tend to not have any fog, but dirtier sky with more smoke and
> air borne dust.
>
> This is definitely a Sun rise.
Thanks and yes, I observed this kind of fog in the morning at the
moselle first.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 20/10/2020 om 19:05 schreef MichaelJF:
> Am 22.02.2019 um 20:04 schrieb MichaelJF:
>> Hi to the crowd,
>>
>> this image has still a lot of flaws (sun colour and reflections, the
>> swan model itself, textures of the cattails) and may be limitations to
>> media by POV. media seems to be handling color_maps or density_maps
>> different than pigment or texture having no interpolation between the
>> map entries but shap edges. This is what I derived in a first attempt.
>> Rendering time was a little bit longer (3 weeks).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>
> Hi to the crowd,
>
> here is the final image of my approach to model steam fog. Having lost
> all the code from my first postings here, the image developed into
> another direction, but I like it better now. May be it can need a little
> bit higher amount of dof, but I will not change this so far. Not to hide
> some flaws of the Xfrog trees but for the general mood of the image.
>
> In fact, I have no idea if the images of a sunrise are very different
> from the images of a sundown. But if I prefer a certain region of this
> planet where this scene could be located and where I observed a similiar
> scene several years ago, than it must be a sundown because it was a look
> to the west. Close to the atlantic ocean a little bit north to the Dune
> of Pilat, France. 1985, I rode a bicycle (crafted by myself and not an
> engine) from Paris to Orleans, and then along the Loire and to Bordeaux
> finally. I remember similiar scences from this journey.
>
> Since swans like to order their feathers with their beaks, I posed the
> swan in wings slightly. It was an unrigged free model I found at
>
> https://free3d.com/3d-model/mute-swan-v1--619725.html
>
> The author used the pseudonym "`printable\_models"'.
>
> All plants were modelled with the trial version of Xfrog. If you work
> through their tutorials you can create very realistic plants, but there
> are still some flaws (obviously repeated textures exp. leafs).
>
> In this image I used the Goldenrod-tutorial by Xfrog but placed scans
> from a rotten one I found in a park nearby as textures. The cattails
> (Typha latifolia) and trees (Pinus pinaster, the maritime or cluster
> pine) I modelled with Xfrog without much help from them. The lower part
> of the stem of the pines I modelled after their tree tutorial.
>
> To have a little bit more light in the foreground I misused radiosity by
> putting a great gray wall (colour White/2) 20 units (meters) behind the
> camera to have some diffuse reflections against the sun. A white wall
> was a little bit to bright IMO.
>
> A very important point was to turn off the media interaction within the
> radiosity block. In my first image here - the lost approach from last
> year - it was turned on and And asked for a second light source. One
> ever learns, and Ands question let to the solutionn of this riddle finally.
>
> Render took 12 days, 17 hours and 25 minutes at an Intel Core i9@3.6 Ghz
> using all 16 Threats.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
Good work sir. I like the mood (Sunrise indeed, as Alain already wrote;
It is mainly a question of environmental temperature differences at
start or end of day, I guess)
I very often use a grey wall behind the camera, in addition to
radiosity, especially for these kind of scenes. An old photographer's trick?
The media on/off is something I have also been struggling with. It very
much depends on the kind of output one wants to achieve (in addition to
the quite different render time). I generally prefer the 'off' state.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF wrote on 20/10/2020 19:05:
>
> Render took 12 days, 17 hours and 25 minutes at an Intel Core i9@3.6 Ghz
> using all 16 Threats.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
Almost two weeks but well spent: it's an idyllic scene!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2020 um 09:23 schrieb Paolo Gibellini:
> MichaelJF wrote on 20/10/2020 19:05:
>>
>> Render took 12 days, 17 hours and 25 minutes at an Intel Core i9@3.6
>> Ghz using all 16 Threats.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>>
>
> Almost two weeks but well spent: it's an idyllic scene!
>
> Paolo
Many thanks, Paolo! I think sometimes a longer break - not by choice in
this case, it was a headcrash - gives some room for new ideas and
improvements. I like the final image much better then the first approach.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.10.2020 um 08:35 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Good work sir. I like the mood (Sunrise indeed, as Alain already wrote;
> It is mainly a question of environmental temperature differences at
> start or end of day, I guess)
>
> I very often use a grey wall behind the camera, in addition to
> radiosity, especially for these kind of scenes. An old photographer's
> trick?
>
> The media on/off is something I have also been struggling with. It very
> much depends on the kind of output one wants to achieve (in addition to
> the quite different render time). I generally prefer the 'off' state.
>
Hi Thomas,
many thanks for your compliment. I'm not an experienced photographer but
I remember that professional photographers use white canvasses to
reflect the light of the sun or their flashlights especially in studio
ligthing behind or beside the camera. May be I invented the wheel again
here.
To switch media on or off in radiosity scenes depends on the scene and
the media used IMO. Having emitting media in a dark room one will like
to switch it on to illuminate the darker areas of the scene by the
media, e.g. a candle. Scattering media in bright light produce to much
reflections and the feature is better turned off. I think one cannot
give a generall guideline here. May be one can consider in a future
version of POV to implement a continous approach instead of the on/off
we have actually.
Best regards
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 21/10/2020 om 18:14 schreef MichaelJF:
> many thanks for your compliment. I'm not an experienced photographer but
> I remember that professional photographers use white canvasses to
> reflect the light of the sun or their flashlights especially in studio
> ligthing behind or beside the camera. May be I invented the wheel again
> here.
>
It works, and that is the main purpose indeed. Initially, I thought that
it was almost heresy to do such a thing when using radiosity, but I soon
learned to think out of the box and just do what I thought best. :-)
> To switch media on or off in radiosity scenes depends on the scene and
> the media used IMO. Having emitting media in a dark room one will like
> to switch it on to illuminate the darker areas of the scene by the
> media, e.g. a candle. Scattering media in bright light produce to much
> reflections and the feature is better turned off. I think one cannot
> give a generall guideline here. May be one can consider in a future
> version of POV to implement a continous approach instead of the on/off
> we have actually.
>
Yes, I agree.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
