 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just love these, can't wait till we get a unix/linux
version.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
11:13pm up 13 days, 3:31, 2 users, load average: 2.08, 1.94, 1.92
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bill DeWitt
Subject: Re: More glow stuff - attached files (1/1) - tree.jpg (1/1)
Date: 3 Sep 2000 21:49:56
Message: <39b2ffc4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> Hows this?
Ooo... Pretty lights.... want pretty lights....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tony[B]
Subject: Re: More glow stuff - attached files (1/1) - tree.jpg (1/1)
Date: 3 Sep 2000 22:14:03
Message: <39b3056b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Does that happen very often? Maybe you should go see a doctor...
> :-)
I've asked them to increase the dosage of my medication to help reduce it.
:)
> I admit that is one use I never thought of.
Well, now you've just got to try it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> Hows this? I didn't have time to write a coniferous tree macro, or even
> a good deciduous tree macro, and I need to tweak the color calculations
> of the individual glows to be more vivid, but it looks pretty neat. No
> light sources, just glows.
>
That looks quite good, although initially i thought of houses, fences, etc.
decorated with those glows. Combined with some radiosity and some street lamps
it could make a quite realistic nighttime atmosphere.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jérôme Berger
Subject: Re: More glow stuff - attached files (1/1)
Date: 4 Sep 2000 08:17:26
Message: <39B392DA.8DDAB99@enst.fr>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> And it shouldn't slow the
> rendering down too much, since the visibility checking could be done
> before the rendering. You could do something similar in POV-Script,
> using the trace() function to disable a glow if something passes in
> front of it.
>
But then it wouldn't work with reflection/refraction would it?
Actually, I think that the checking needs to be done for each ray which
would slow things down :(
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think that the checking needs to be done for each ray which
> > would slow things down :(
>
> Why? Checking from the camera position should be enough.
>
I should have added: "if you want it to work with
reflection/refraction". To get the winking out effect in the
reflections, you'd need to check for each ray if the center of the glow
would be visible from the starting point of that ray, then if it is
visible, compute the glow effect for the ray, otherwise ignore it. But
then of course you'd have the same kind of limitations that led to the
introduction of photons, so I guess it's mainly a question of how
perfect you want it to be (and what would be "perfect" in this case
since we're talking about an artistic effect and not a physical one...)
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice new feature! Sure is alot of salivating going on in this thread.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
