 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2013 14:37, clipka wrote:
> Am 21.11.2013 14:24, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 21-11-2013 13:45, Fractracer wrote:
>>> Here is a work in progress fir the CGSphere site.
>>>
>> Now, that would be something for the new UberPOV.
>
> If you take a close look at the png file header, you'll find out that
> this *is* the new UberPOV :-D
>
Huh? What do you mean??
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Fractracer on date 21/11/2013 13.45 wrote:
> Here is a work in progress fir the CGSphere site.
>
It looks promising!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.11.2013 16:30, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 21-11-2013 14:37, clipka wrote:
>> Am 21.11.2013 14:24, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>>> On 21-11-2013 13:45, Fractracer wrote:
>>>> Here is a work in progress fir the CGSphere site.
>>>>
>>> Now, that would be something for the new UberPOV.
>>
>> If you take a close look at the png file header, you'll find out that
>> this *is* the new UberPOV :-D
>>
>
> Huh? What do you mean??
PNG files, like other file formats, contain not only the actual image
data, but also some metadata, ranging from essential information like
image width and height, bits per pixel etc., to whatever the thing that
generated the image thought useful to know; for instance a camera with
inbuilt GPS might store place & time where the image was taken. This
portion of the image file is commonly known as "file header"
POV-Ray 3.7 includes its software version in the file header, and
UberPOV - being based on POV-Ray 3.7 - does the same.
You'll need extra software to view all the file header contents though,
such as a hex editor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2013 16:58, clipka wrote:
> You'll need extra software to view all the file header contents though,
> such as a hex editor.
>
Which explains my surprise ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here is another image of my work in progress for the CGSphere site.
I've tried some new aspects of UberPov...
I have found some rendering difference between the versions of Pov (v36, v36 and
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cgspherev2.png' (343 KB)
Preview of image 'cgspherev2.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fractracer" <lg.### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Here is another image of my work in progress for the CGSphere site.
> I've tried some new aspects of UberPov...
>
> I have found some rendering difference between the versions of Pov (v36, v36 and
I would expect slight differences between the versions. A lot of things changed
from 3.6 to 3.7 and UberPov introduces new Features to make the things addressed
more easily or still possible. The micronormal approach to simulate blurred
reflection worked with 3.6 or 3.7 but it was very time consuming e.g..
But for your Image. I think you are on a good road. I like the second one much
better than the first. I do not really understand the rules of this strange
contest. They insist that one should not change the grid or it's texture (it is
is interesting. May be they accept it. I don't know. In fact I don't understand
their rules completely or how the voting works. I could not find a hint to that.
May be in the members area...
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/11/13 16:56, Fractracer wrote:
> Here is another image of my work in progress for the CGSphere site.
> I've tried some new aspects of UberPov...
>
> I have found some rendering difference between the versions of Pov (v36, v36 and
>
I like the way this is going. An excellent use of chiaroscuro
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I like the way this is going. An excellent use of chiaroscuro
>
> John
> --
> Protect the Earth
> It was not given to you by your parents
> You hold it in trust for your children
Thanks, but now I don't know whre to go. Maybe use another light for the back, I
try different things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-11-2013 14:09, Fractracer wrote:
> Thanks, but now I don't know whre to go. Maybe use another light for the back, I
> try different things.
>
For me, this looks finished. I think that any additional light would
ruin the effect.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 25-11-2013 14:09, Fractracer wrote:
> > Thanks, but now I don't know whre to go. Maybe use another light for the back, I
> > try different things.
> >
> For me, this looks finished. I think that any additional light would
> ruin the effect.
>
> Thomas
I second Thomas. The only idea I have is to have more of the smaller (chrome?)
spheres traced at the grid as if they were rolling into the direction of the
cam. Only close to the centre line of the grid. May be you put a single smaller
"fiery" sphere among them. But I wouldn't do much more. The scene is close to
perfect IMO.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
