 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I added a facing gradient with rgb 0 on the back side, now it works.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'spheres.jpg' (38 KB)
Download 'spheres2.jpg' (41 KB)
Preview of image 'spheres.jpg'
Preview of image 'spheres2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i don't recall anyone trying that before. clever. will it work on
objects with irregular shapes? is there a way to orient the gradient so
it is always away from the camera without rotating the actual object?
that way you could use this in animations where the objects stay still
and the camera moves around. you could even animate the balls, floating
above the typical black and white checkered plane with a camera rotating
around them and oscillating up and down so the background color of the
balls changes from white to black and back again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ryan Constantine" <rcc### [at] ucdavis edu> wrote in message
news:3A64CAC3.894329D5@ucdavis.edu...
> i don't recall anyone trying that before. clever. will it work on
> objects with irregular shapes?
Not really, but then if it's csg you could just apply the gradient to each
object I guess.
> is there a way to orient the gradient so it is always away from the camera
> without rotating the actual object?
That's what I did, just declare camera_position and object_position vectors,
and it faces the gradient towards the camera.
> that way you could use this in animations where the objects stay still
> and the camera moves around. you could even animate the balls, floating
> above the typical black and white checkered plane with a camera rotating
> around them and oscillating up and down so the background color of the
> balls changes from white to black and back again.
Huh?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Lauritzen wrote:
> I added a facing gradient with rgb 0 on the back side, now it works.
Personally I think the absorption media would be a better solution, but
I know media can be a pain to tweak. The thing is that, at least around
the edges, you'd expect some degree of translucency.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, I added absorption, looked real nice, until I changed the
background to black again. With the facing gradient, it will look the same
either way, even if it has an irregular background.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Lauritzen wrote:
> Actually, I added absorption, looked real nice, until I changed the
> background to black again. With the facing gradient, it will look the same
> either way, even if it has an irregular background.
But really it's not supposed to. I don't mean to nitpick your spheres though.
I think it's a matter of tweaking. Probably more work than it's worth anyway.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But really it's not supposed to. I don't mean to nitpick your spheres
though.
> I think it's a matter of tweaking. Probably more work than it's worth
anyway.
Yes it is, they're not your spheres. They look the way I wanted them to,
and that's what matters right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Lauritzen wrote:
> > But really it's not supposed to. I don't mean to nitpick your spheres
> though.
> > I think it's a matter of tweaking. Probably more work than it's worth
> anyway.
>
> Yes it is, they're not your spheres. They look the way I wanted them to,
> and that's what matters right?
Yep. :)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a6473f5@news.povray.org>, "Ben Lauritzen"
<loo### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> I added a facing gradient with rgb 0 on the back side, now it works.
Two problems with this method: you can't see the spheres when behind
other spheres, and there is a black fringe around the spheres.
If you use MegaPOV, you might be able to fix the "fringe" problem using
interior_texture...just make the ordinary texture clear, and the
interior texture opaque black, so you can see into the spheres but not
out of them. This would also automatically work with any camera angle
and with light sources, with no extra work. And it would certainly be
easier than messing with gradient texture maps... It would also work
with any object, not just spheres.
It doesn't fix the problem that the spheres become opaque, though...but
maybe that is what you want. (If the spheres are really supposed to be
transparent, their color *should* be affected by the background...but
you have an interesting effect here of opaque objects that look
transparent.)
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well that makes it alot easier. No need for trigonometry after all I guess.
The "fringe" problem was actually because I didn't rotate them exactly
towards the camera, just approximately. I changed that later, so it doesn't
show up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
