 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rene Bui wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm working on skin+sss through pov media. Well... I would say : it's SSSo
> hard !
> As you know , too many translucent problems, a lot of time for tweaking and
> then waiting for render etc. etc.
> Now I say to myself : probably it's time to give up. :-(
>
> I'm not happy with the results but perhaps my eyes are simply tired.
> Anyway, here are some of my last tests.
>
Where do these test fit in with the results you got in your post of 9/19
titled Always my Wings model? I thought the translucency you got there
was pretty amazing and beyond anything I was ever able to achieve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> :) ...because it's hard to do it better?
Yes, something like that.. until we get a new tool or improvment.
>You done it very well, much better than my lame first attempt, which had much more
artifacts.
Thanks.
>The problem I think with SSS is that you will need a realistic structure
>inside (bones and muscles) to get a realistic head.
??? .. Do you really think that ? Could you tell me more about it ?
>On the other hand, the MLPov tests are also awesome, and very convincing too.
>
>--
>Jaime
Thanks. For the next step I'll try to improve the faked translucent.
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Don't give up! (Kate Bush's or Pete Gabriel voice as you want)
>I agree tweaking scattering media is not really a rest cure :/
>Marc
Thanks for the compassion.
Oh, I luv Kate Bush !
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Fantastic. You're not a newbie by any sense of the word. Definitely not. :-)
Thanks!
But I started pov since february 2004, so I have still many things to
learn..
>You said it's fast to render. How fast?
3m 09s for 512x384 compared to SSS/media (several long hours..)
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Excellent work.
Thanks!
>I must add however that I had a tiny lol to myself when I saw that sphere
>and thought it best described as "fake pornography."
I see...
I think your intensive "blob job" (without word-play) take you to consider
an innocent sphere as sexually attractive ! LOL
On the cylinder, maybe I should replace the plastic by a chrome texture. ;-)
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rene Bui wrote:
>>The problem I think with SSS is that you will need a realistic structure
>>inside (bones and muscles) to get a realistic head.
>
> ??? .. Do you really think that ? Could you tell me more about it ?
I mean: a real head is not a perfect solid with uniform density. This
is, IMHO, why it always looks like wax/soap when you apply faked SSS to
an empty object. The SSS effect should be different on places with bones
more close to the skin surface than in others with more flesh or muscles
between the skin and the skull, and this only seems possible by
modeling, at least roughly, the internal structure.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <41dd8cc6$1@news.povray.org>, jai### [at] ignorancia org
says...
> Rene Bui wrote:
> >>The problem I think with SSS is that you will need a realistic structure
> >>inside (bones and muscles) to get a realistic head.
> >
> > ??? .. Do you really think that ? Could you tell me more about it ?
>
> I mean: a real head is not a perfect solid with uniform density. This
> is, IMHO, why it always looks like wax/soap when you apply faked SSS to
> an empty object. The SSS effect should be different on places with bones
> more close to the skin surface than in others with more flesh or muscles
> between the skin and the skull, and this only seems possible by
> modeling, at least roughly, the internal structure.
>
That is likely the point of some methods which only apply depth rules to
the surface. The object is still hallow, but since it doesn't depend on
'real' calculations using media, it doesn't get treated as though it is.
More of a case of the sampling occasionally blending point on other parts
of the texture you give with the point you calculating, so it 'seems' to
be doing what media does. Accurate subsurface scattering with media
would, much like adage about trying to accurately simulate the universe,
almost require a simulation of the body that would require building one,
layer by layer, with nearly every part in it. Could it be done? Possibly.
It is practical if all you want is a halfway realistic looking model? Not
by the farthest stretch of the imagination. lol
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
this has a very "I, Robot" quality.
"Rene Bui" <ren### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:web.41dcf99d422926ef9cc1eaf50@news.povray.org...
> And as bonus, here is the Jaime's custom car paint version ! ;-)
>
> Rene
> (the old newbie)
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>wow. i think you have been staring at them too long to make an unbiased
>judgement. they are extremely impressive.
Thanks. Hope you're right.
That reminds me when I was in my art school, our old professor always said
to us with emphasis:
"Messieurs, vous avez du caca dans les yeux !"
I don't know how to translate that, maybe something like : "Gentlemen, you
have shit in your eyes !"
He also was right.
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought the translucency you got there
>was pretty amazing and beyond anything I was ever able to achieve.
Thank you so much
>Where do these test fit in with the results you got in your post of 9/19
>titled Always my Wings model?
Oh Jim.. you talk to me as if I just live in Canal street, but I'm not.
Remember, my english is preteen level.
Do you mean these images are worse than my post of 9/19 ?
Rene
(the old newbie)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
