 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> A gray scale anaglyph of an outside micrometer, 0 to 1 inch.
>
> Previously I would have made the scales with an image map or objects just above
> the surface(shadows!). For this picture I used object patterns, I like the
> result.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Stephen S
Update, not anaglyph.
I'm stuggling to increase the realism. I can tell it's not real, but not shure
how to get it closer to the picture in my mind :-)
Comments welcome.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'micrometers_0000.png' (1242 KB)
Preview of image 'micrometers_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> A gray scale anaglyph of an outside micrometer, 0 to 1 inch.
>>
>> Previously I would have made the scales with an image map or objects just above
>> the surface(shadows!). For this picture I used object patterns, I like the
>> result.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> Stephen S
>
> Update, not anaglyph.
> I'm stuggling to increase the realism. I can tell it's not real, but not shure
> how to get it closer to the picture in my mind :-)
>
> Comments welcome.
> Stephen S
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Some things that can help:
Place it in a room so that there is something else than just a
sky_sphere or some gradient to reflect.
I've seen some, and the cylinder is very highly polished, highly
reflective. Normaly, high grade stainless steel.
The screw looks OK.
The "handle" of those I saw was somewhat yellower or a little brownish.
Maybe lower the brillance.
There should be a group of graduations beside the scale. 11 of them in
the space of 2 lines on the outer scale. It's used to get one more
decimal place in the mesure.
The "C" part should be a little less black. Maybe a 5 to 8% gray would
be better.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:01:15 EDT, "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>Comments welcome.
How about some normals on the anvil and spindle <ducks and runs> ;)
As Alain said something to be reflected, maybe the kitchen HDI probe. I think
that you need an extra scale on the vernier to get the accuracy you advertise.
Other than that the micrometer is just too clean/new looking. So a patina of oil
or some dirt and scratches.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <aze### [at] qwerty org> wrote:
> Some things that can help:
> Place it in a room so that there is something else than just a
> sky_sphere or some gradient to reflect.
I think I'll try an HDR image.
> I've seen some, and the cylinder is very highly polished, highly
> reflective. Normaly, high grade stainless steel.
The one I'm modeling after is only highly polished on the contact surface, the
rest is dull(grainy) and only mostly refective.
> The screw looks OK.
> The "handle" of those I saw was somewhat yellower or a little brownish.
> Maybe lower the brillance.
> There should be a group of graduations beside the scale. 11 of them in
> the space of 2 lines on the outer scale. It's used to get one more
> decimal place in the mesure.
I've looked at several designs in cataloges from work and some are like that but
mine is as modeled :-)
One turn moves 0.025, and .0001 is read on the scale going out of view.
> The "C" part should be a little less black. Maybe a 5 to 8% gray would
> be better.
I am happy about the wood, unfortunatly I think it's better that my model, witch
was suposed to be the center of the picture. Cut and paste from the Isowood
include, and only a few tweaks.
Thanks for your comments, I knew I needed more, but wanted an outside opinion on
what to tackle first.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:01:15 EDT, "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >Comments welcome.
>
> How about some normals on the anvil and spindle <ducks and runs> ;)
Yes I'm still trying to narrow down the ballance :-)
> As Alain said something to be reflected, maybe the kitchen HDI probe. I think
> that you need an extra scale on the vernier to get the accuracy you advertise.
> Other than that the micrometer is just too clean/new looking. So a patina of oil
> or some dirt and scratches.
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I think I going for something that can be printed large, but more as a studio
type of image... still exploring.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
....
> I think
> that you need an extra scale on the vernier to get the accuracy you advertise.
....
The following image would be read:
0.2, past the 2 on the major scale
+ 0.025, one line past the 2
+ 0.001, one line past the 0 on the rotating scale
+ 0.0005, lining up the fixed scale going into the shadow with best match from
the lines on the rotating scale(going into the shadow).
..2265 :-)
Ok the fixed scale is still in shadow because the spacing is still not correct.
Need to adjust for using a pigment object with cylindrical warp.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'micrometers_0000.png' (38 KB)
Preview of image 'micrometers_0000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:01:15 EDT, "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>> Comments welcome.
>
> How about some normals on the anvil and spindle <ducks and runs> ;)
>
> As Alain said something to be reflected, maybe the kitchen HDI probe. I think
> that you need an extra scale on the vernier to get the accuracy you advertise.
> Other than that the micrometer is just too clean/new looking. So a patina of oil
> or some dirt and scratches.
Um, nope. The satin chrome of the barrel and thimble isn't quite right,
but my thoughts would be more work on the lighting. The color of the
micrometer frame, depends on maker. No name on it, I'll assume chinese.
My Starrets, the frame was a gloss black when they were new. now a
beat up gloss black in places. the vernier for the ten thousandths is
correct as shown.
The satin chrome will vary depending on manufacturer and age, I have
older Starrett and Lufkin with the chrome polished to a high shine, from
use. The spindle is always ground and polished, tool steel, not
stainless steel. The carbide anvils always have a grayish appearance,
this from the manufacturing process, not highly reflective.
The only thing I see that looks really odd is the sharp, dark shadow
where the thimble meets the barrel, I've never seen that even with new
micrometers. (Diffusion from the satin chrome, probably?)
Otherwise, beautiful job.
Rich (retired machinist/gage technician/toolmaker.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rich <ri.### [at] attnet> wrote:
> Um, nope. The satin chrome of the barrel and thimble isn't quite right,
> but my thoughts would be more work on the lighting. The color of the
> micrometer frame, depends on maker. No name on it, I'll assume chinese.
> My Starrets, the frame was a gloss black when they were new. now a
> beat up gloss black in places. the vernier for the ten thousandths is
> correct as shown.
>
> The satin chrome will vary depending on manufacturer and age, I have
> older Starrett and Lufkin with the chrome polished to a high shine, from
> use. The spindle is always ground and polished, tool steel, not
> stainless steel. The carbide anvils always have a grayish appearance,
> this from the manufacturing process, not highly reflective.
>
> The only thing I see that looks really odd is the sharp, dark shadow
> where the thimble meets the barrel, I've never seen that even with new
> micrometers. (Diffusion from the satin chrome, probably?)
>
> Otherwise, beautiful job.
>
> Rich (retired machinist/gage technician/toolmaker.)
Thank you.
Your comments are right on, apparently there's no fooling you. The
thimble/barrel shadow is my lack of a global illumination solution. The frame is
suposed to be a slight blue colour.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:32:24 EDT, "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> How about some normals on the anvil and spindle <ducks and runs> ;)
>Yes I'm still trying to narrow down the ballance :-)
>
I think that the balance is looking ok. You could try stretching the normals
along the long axis.
>I think I going for something that can be printed large, but more as a studio
>type of image... still exploring.
Go for it :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 20:29:50 EDT, "StephenS" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>....
>> I think
>> that you need an extra scale on the vernier to get the accuracy you advertise.
>....
>The following image would be read:
>0.2, past the 2 on the major scale
>+ 0.025, one line past the 2
>+ 0.001, one line past the 0 on the rotating scale
>+ 0.0005, lining up the fixed scale going into the shadow with best match from
>the lines on the rotating scale(going into the shadow).
>..2265 :-)
>
>Ok the fixed scale is still in shadow because the spacing is still not correct.
>Need to adjust for using a pigment object with cylindrical warp.
>
It has been so long since I used a vernier that I should keep quiet ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
