>
>Render time was 3 hr 5 min in the background on a K6III/400. Memory
>consumed was 23 MB (yes it's a big mesh :) ). Radiosity was used but
>only because I forgot to turn it off.

You mean you do test renders with radiosity turned on :-)

Beautiful image, it's great just as it is.  The wall 
looks particularly good.  I'd be interested to know what
normal you used on the wall. 

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

 11:23pm  up 19:14,  7 users,  load average: 2.16, 2.29, 2.26

Post a reply to this message

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments. Here 's version two. This is
the last one before the final render. I want to apologize in advance
for the total of three version (this is No. 2) of the same image that
I'll post, but this project is really important for me and I want it
to be as perfect as I can make it.

Now for the image. I don't know the origin of the horribly looking
crackles in the smoke, if someone has an idea please let me know.
Someone pointed that the elephant is not casting a shadow. Should it
cast one, it being transparent and with such soft illumination as in
this scene? Does anyone recognize what is burning?

Thanks in advance for any comments. I really appreciate your help.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sloncho-wip-2.jpg' (83 KB)

Preview of image 'sloncho-wip-2.jpg'

It's a P!

I really like that wall...

--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Feb 2000 21:58:38 -0500, sjl### [at] ndirectcouk (Steve) wrote:

>>
>>Render time was 3 hr 5 min in the background on a K6III/400. Memory
>>consumed was 23 MB (yes it's a big mesh :) ). Radiosity was used but
>>only because I forgot to turn it off.
>
>You mean you do test renders with radiosity turned on :-)

Ain't I nuts? :)

>Beautiful image, it's great just as it is.  The wall 
>looks particularly good.  I'd be interested to know what
>normal you used on the wall. 

I no longer keep that source but it was something along the lines of:

normal
{ average
  normal_map
  { [1 granite -2 scale 2]
    [0.5 granite]
    [0.25 granite 0.5]
  }
}

Just a simple 1/f type of thing, nothing special.


Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> Thanks in advance for any comments. I really appreciate your help.

I would like to comment if I may...

  I was just comparing this version with the first you posted and to be
honest I really like the lighting you had in the original version. This
one seems to be a little over saturated with light. I liked the previous
version because it seemed self illuminating.
  As far as shadows go a soft shadow would not be unrealistic but perhaps
it is not really needed. I was just playing around with a clear plastic
bottle with about 1/8 of it's volume filled with water. Under incandecent
light the shadow was very pronounced even with the caustics. Under a
flouecent light with a modest white reflecter behind it the shadow was
washed out but still present. The caustics were not as pronounced. The
distance to the single bulb flourecent lamp was around 2 meters.

It's your call but I really did like the lighting contrast better in
your first posted image.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> > Thanks in advance for any comments. I really appreciate your help.
> 
> I would like to comment if I may...

P.S. Comparing the two images again another thing that stands out is the
depth of the normal used on the walls and floor. Again I favour the first
over the second perhaps because the first does not call attention to
itself as much as the first. It has become a distracting element. Perhaps
it is a result of the two different lighting models or perhaps you actually
changed the normal but whatever the reason I prefer the first over the last.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

If Lance hadn't said it was a "P" I was going to say "D".
I too think a hazy shadow should exist for the elephant.  Maybe the gnarled
lines are intersections with the wall? Maybe not.
Weren't you using a rounded box for the room before?  I think that would be much
more suitable for this chipped and chiseled type of texture.
I really have to say though that the burning object, if indeed a letter P, is
going to need better distinction.

Bob

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:A924ONPN86v60lcyPEFtprlybybW@4ax.com...
| Thanks to everyone for the kind comments. Here 's version two. This is
| the last one before the final render. I want to apologize in advance
| for the total of three version (this is No. 2) of the same image that
| I'll post, but this project is really important for me and I want it
| to be as perfect as I can make it.
|
| Now for the image. I don't know the origin of the horribly looking
| crackles in the smoke, if someone has an idea please let me know.
| Someone pointed that the elephant is not casting a shadow. Should it
| cast one, it being transparent and with such soft illumination as in
| this scene? Does anyone recognize what is burning?
|
| Thanks in advance for any comments. I really appreciate your help.
|
|
| Peter Popov
| pet### [at] usanet
| ICQ: 15002700
|

Post a reply to this message

The lighting is a bit too intense in this image compared
to the first one.  That looks like it is 3DS that's 
been set alight.

I see what you mean about the smoke, only thing I could
suggest is that if you've got any ambient or diffuse in
that wall texture try turning it off or turning it down,
as it seems to be the wall shining through the smoke, 
but I could be completely wrong here.

-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  2:50pm  up 1 day, 10:41,  7 users,  load average: 2.10, 2.12, 2.09

Post a reply to this message