 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Hughes, B
Subject: SSS revisited: Samuel's method vs. media [~25K JPG]
Date: 30 Nov 2003 04:21:30
Message: <3fc9b69a@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
First of all, this isn't an attempt to debunk Samuel Benge's method. I just
wanted to see for myself a direct comparison to media SSS. I got out an old
(and sparse of triangles) Venus de Milo statue mesh I had gotten long ago
(POV-Ray Objects Collection?) and rendered it both ways. Unfortunately, the
object pigment way was very slow (12 min.) but media went six times faster
(2 min). I figure there's still good reasons to use a non-media method
sometimes, mainly to avoid multiple media artifacts; or just for other
effects, all of which I couldn't begin to guess right now.
Media settings were very simple, being nothing more than absorption < 0.3,
0.6, 0.9 > scattering { 4, 0.3 } without any other items (everything
default).
There's an obvious color difference between these two images. I guess I
should have changed the averaged pigment of rgb 1 in the 'surface' SSS one
to better match the media. Object SSS top, media SSS bottom.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sss_comparitive-test1.jpg' (18 KB)
Preview of image 'sss_comparitive-test1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hughes, B. wrote:
> ...
>There's an obvious color difference between these two images. I guess I
>should have changed the averaged pigment of rgb 1 in the 'surface' SSS one
>to better match the media. Object SSS top, media SSS bottom.
Both seem to be very realistic, but for me, media SSS looks better.
Sincerely Yours, Alex Klucikov
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
omn### [at] charter net news:3fc9b69a@news.povray.org
Could You please email me this model (or better - entire scene including
camera/light), I want to make some comparsion with my "wax" materials
pov {at} raf256.com (put "not_a_spam" in subject line if Your's ISP is
listed in RBL blacklist, or if You are a nigerian spammer ;)
--
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: gilrain
Subject: Re: SSS revisited: Samuel's method vs. media [~25K JPG]
Date: 3 Dec 2003 01:55:35
Message: <3fcd88e7$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hm, I actually think the object SSS is far more convincing. The media SSS
has that tell-tale, characteristic fuzziness around the edges. Whenever I
see that fuzziness in an SSS model, I know it's caused by media. The object
SSS has nice, hard edges -- a very convincing translucent glass texture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Andy Cocker
Subject: Re: SSS revisited: Samuel's method vs. media [~25K JPG]
Date: 3 Dec 2003 06:02:20
Message: <3fcdc2bc@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"gilrain" <gil### [at] lunarpolicynet> wrote in message
news:3fcd88e7$1@news.povray.org...
> Hm, I actually think the object SSS is far more convincing. The media SSS
> has that tell-tale, characteristic fuzziness around the edges. Whenever I
> see that fuzziness in an SSS model, I know it's caused by media. The object
> SSS has nice, hard edges -- a very convincing translucent glass texture.
Well, my SSS Media Statue post has hard edges. I think the important thing in this
respect is
to have an ior greater then 1. I used 1.3.
Andy Cocker
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
