 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"s.day" <s.d### [at] uel acuk> wrote:
> You are the master of Povray clouds Robert, this is a great animation. My first
> thought was how did you render it that quickly but I see you have a few tricks
> up your sleeve.
>
> Sean
Thanks Sean, I am a bit obsessed by clouds, but I owe it all to Gilles Tran
since his brilliant code was my starting point when I began doing cloud renders
so many years ago.
As for tricks, yes I use them liberally to get the quality of image that I'm
after, but in the shortest amount of time. In fact, the +fe +ua switches are the
most useful thing for this in my opinion, allowing one scene to control the
media and others to do other parts.
I used to be of the render everything at once mentality, but some friends of
mine that work on video game art have finally convinced me that premise (which
they call the "POV-Ray mentality") was false. Now I often break a scene up into
3 or four different shots and in-camera composite them all for the final. This
allows the flexibility to work on individual pieces and fix little glitches
without having to needlessly re-render everything each time. Some might call
this "cheating" (and I would have too just a few years back) but I've been
browbeaten enough about it to learn that's just how professionals work.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> You are completely fooling the eyes! Perfect.
>
> Thomas
Thanks very much, Thomas :)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's amazing!
> A simple question: the camera seems to move into a static cloud (I don't
> know how to express exactly in English, but the steam doesn't seems to
> move). It's a huge work obtain the little variations of the steam caused
> from the breeze?
> ;-)
> Paolo
Thank you Paolo :)
Actually the camera is stationary, it's just the clouds "billowing in the wind"
that are moving, via a simple set of linear interpolations. Here's the basic
setup that I used (scale exaggerated). I can post the scene if anyone's
interested in the details.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cloud_anim_breakdown.jpg' (157 KB)
Preview of image 'cloud_anim_breakdown.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:43:15 +0200, Robert McGregor
<rob### [at] mcgregorfineartcom> wrote:
> This is a still frame from another short animation that I've started
> working on.
> This shot features simple animated birds, cloud layers, and a red
> balloon.
>
> Gradient sky, blob birds, procedural media clouds, CSG
> (ovus/sphere/cone/torus)
> balloon and sphere_sweep string.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
Lovely!
How about adding 98 more red balloons? ;)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-10-2013 0:12, Robert McGregor wrote:
> I used to be of the render everything at once mentality, but some friends of
> mine that work on video game art have finally convinced me that premise (which
> they call the "POV-Ray mentality") was false. Now I often break a scene up into
> 3 or four different shots and in-camera composite them all for the final. This
> allows the flexibility to work on individual pieces and fix little glitches
> without having to needlessly re-render everything each time. Some might call
> this "cheating" (and I would have too just a few years back) but I've been
> browbeaten enough about it to learn that's just how professionals work.
That is an interesting thought and I fully agree with it, although I
almost always render everything at once. Difficult to change one's
habits. I shall keep this strongly in mind in the future.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Robert McGregor on date 15/10/2013 0.19 wrote:
> Thank you Paolo :)
>
> Actually the camera is stationary, it's just the clouds "billowing in the wind"
> that are moving, via a simple set of linear interpolations. Here's the basic
> setup that I used (scale exaggerated). I can post the scene if anyone's
> interested in the details.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> www.McGregorFineArt.com
>
I see!
And thank you for the explanation,
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually the camera is stationary, it's just the clouds "billowing in
> the wind" that are moving, via a simple set of linear interpolations.
I also got the impression that the cloud itself was "static", because
you can see fixed patterns that are moving without "morphing".
Of course rendering the media differently for each frame is not an
option if the aim is to have a fast method. But maybe you could apply
some slowly changing, cyclic warp / turbulence / distortion to the
textures? Now that you're already in faker territory anyway ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> > Actually the camera is stationary, it's just the clouds "billowing in
> > the wind" that are moving, via a simple set of linear interpolations.
>
> I also got the impression that the cloud itself was "static", because
> you can see fixed patterns that are moving without "morphing".
>
> Of course rendering the media differently for each frame is not an
> option if the aim is to have a fast method. But maybe you could apply
> some slowly changing, cyclic warp / turbulence / distortion to the
> textures? Now that you're already in faker territory anyway ;)
Actually I did a few short tests using those same ideas, but the animation
looked really weird to me no matter how subtle I made it, so I finally just left
it out.
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
