"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It all looks impossibly complex-- and quite beautiful. Thanks for sharing the
> various renders and for explaining the nuts-and-bolts of how it was done.

Thanks for the interest! Feedback is a real motivator - if people are interested
in more, I'm more likely to take it further. Not that I'm not interested in it
for my own sake of course, but real life is so tiring :)

> In one of your earlier threads/posts, you mentioned the possibility of using a
> 'radiosity-only' light_source (a feature (?) in UBER POV), for adding
> additional fill light(?) to some of the darker recesses of your construction.
> Even if I'm wrong about your meaning, it sounds like an interesting feature to
> contemplate: A light_source that does not directly light-up an object surface,
> but does allow the object to emit radiosity bounce-lighting (from that light)
> to other objects.

I think what I meant was just to use radiosity to provide all the light, i.e.
have emissive blobs (maybe hidden using no_image) rather than light sources.
This isn't an UberPOV-only option, it just works better than in base POV-Ray
because I don't have to worry about radiosity artifacts.

There was an UberPOV-only option - use lots of distance-faded light_sources.
This can also be done in base POV-Ray of course, but UberPOV allows such
light_sources to be ignored over a certain distance away, which turns a dog-slow
render into something feasible.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> possibility of using a
> 'radiosity-only' light_source
> to some of the darker recesses of your construction

Then there's this - see attached...

Happily this rendered in <10 mins!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'autobuild_dark.jpg' (112 KB)

Preview of image 'autobuild_dark.jpg'

Op 16/12/2021 om 17:19 schreef Bill Pragnell:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It all looks impossibly complex-- and quite beautiful. Thanks for sharing the
>> various renders and for explaining the nuts-and-bolts of how it was done.
> 
> Thanks for the interest! Feedback is a real motivator - if people are interested
> in more, I'm more likely to take it further. Not that I'm not interested in it
> for my own sake of course, but real life is so tiring :)
> 
Absolutely right! And this is an inspiring project.

>> In one of your earlier threads/posts, you mentioned the possibility of using a
>> 'radiosity-only' light_source (a feature (?) in UBER POV), for adding
>> additional fill light(?) to some of the darker recesses of your construction.
>> Even if I'm wrong about your meaning, it sounds like an interesting feature to
>> contemplate: A light_source that does not directly light-up an object surface,
>> but does allow the object to emit radiosity bounce-lighting (from that light)
>> to other objects.
> 
> I think what I meant was just to use radiosity to provide all the light, i.e.
> have emissive blobs (maybe hidden using no_image) rather than light sources.
> This isn't an UberPOV-only option, it just works better than in base POV-Ray
> because I don't have to worry about radiosity artifacts.
> 
It has been some while since I last used UberPOV, in fact since I 
switched to the successive v3.8 betas, and I guess those would also 
avoid radiosity artefacts, especially when using stochastic render? I am 
mumbling away, really, and it should be tested of course.

> There was an UberPOV-only option - use lots of distance-faded light_sources.
> This can also be done in base POV-Ray of course, but UberPOV allows such
> light_sources to be ignored over a certain distance away, which turns a dog-slow
> render into something feasible.
> 
Hmm... didn't remember that one.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Il 16/12/2021 20:19, Bill Pragnell ha scritto:
 > "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
 >> possibility of using a
 >> 'radiosity-only' light_source
 >> to some of the darker recesses of your construction
 >
 > Then there's this - see attached...
 >
 > Happily this rendered in <10 mins!
 >
 > Bill

Mmm... with a red or blue background light the image could became scary...

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> It has been some while since I last used UberPOV, in fact since I
> switched to the successive v3.8 betas, and I guess those would also
> avoid radiosity artefacts, especially when using stochastic render?

I believe the unbiased radiosity implementation is UberPOV-only so far; the
'stochastic' nature of 3.8 refers to blur and antialiasing supersampling.
Radiosity sampling is an entirely different mechanism, and the associated
artefacts are larger-scale lighting effects.

PS as far as I know! Any experts, please correct me :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > possibility of using a
> > 'radiosity-only' light_source
> > to some of the darker recesses of your construction
>
> Then there's this - see attached...
>
> Happily this rendered in <10 mins!
>
> Bill

I really really like that image. :-) A Dyson sphere in Escher's Universe...
What about adding a bit of atmosphere to catch the light rays escaping from that
structure ?
Can't wait to see your next renders on that project. As Dave Blandston said,
it's going to become a POV-Ray classic !

Pascal

Post a reply to this message

Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Il 16/12/2021 20:19, Bill Pragnell ha scritto:
> >
>  >
>  > Then there's this - see attached...
>  >
>  > Happily this rendered in <10 mins!
>  >
>
> Mmm... with a red or blue background light the image could became scary...
>

And if the rad-emitting object were to be made no_image (and possibly smaller in
size), the effect would be quite interesting and even scarier! In the current
render, it looks like a big white sphere; if it's made invisible, then only its
rad-lighting effect will show up.

Post a reply to this message