Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
: Be afraid, be very afraid - scattering media in 3.1 is 'orrible and very slow,
: or, with higher quality settings, ok and very very slow. It's one of the best
: reasons for trading up to megapov.

: I know others have said this in this thread, but scattering media in 3.1 really
: needs a big skull and crossbones on it.

  Oh, then these type of images would not be possible:

http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-12-31/strike.jpg

  That image takes *advantage* of the graininess of media method 1 (although
it wasn't known as "method 1" back then). Doing the same with the current
method 3 would be, if not completely impossible, at least very difficult and
probably slower (perhaps a lot slower).

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3bd92d1e@news.povray.org...
>
>   Oh, then these type of images would not be possible:
>
> http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-12-31/strike.jpg
>
>   That image takes *advantage* of the graininess of media method 1 (although
> it wasn't known as "method 1" back then). Doing the same with the current
> method 3 would be, if not completely impossible, at least very difficult and
> probably slower (perhaps a lot slower).
>

Hmm, well I won't dispute the basic point - the graininess could be made to work
to your advantage - but I'm not convinced that it adds anything to this picture,
it just doesn't detract from it... well, not much. Should smoke really be
grainy?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> Should smoke really be grainy?

If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3BD97011.44D60AC5@pacbell.net...
>
> If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
> you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
> of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
> that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?
>

Heh - I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it is certainly true that by
"awsum rolex" we generally mean "looks like a photograph", not "looks like
reality".

Probably one for o-t, but does the phrase "looks like reality" have any
verifiable meaning?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:3BD97011.44D60AC5@pacbell.net...
> >
> > If you look at the original color footage, from the attack on Pearl Harbor,
> > you will see that the smoke does indeed look grainy. Probably a combination
> > of the type of fuel creating the smoke and the nature of color film used at
> > that time. Reality mimicking art or art mimicking reality?
> >
> 
> Heh - I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it is certainly true that by
> "awsum rolex" we generally mean "looks like a photograph", not "looks like
> reality".
> 
> Probably one for o-t, but does the phrase "looks like reality" have any
> verifiable meaning?

That's too deep for me. C'mon - get real, Tom!

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

hi guys,

monday morning and i messed with it a little bit this weekend.  the
problem i'm seeing is that i expect the fogginess to just show up
in the light rays coming thru the window, but the whole darn scene
is foggy.  i'm not a happy camper.  i need to get smarter.

i looked at the media2 pov scene and played off of it.  because i
only wanted the foggy look in the light rays coming thru the window,
i set up a spotlight outside and pointing in at the right angle with
the media turned on.  everything is still foggy.  i'm going to play
with it again this evening.  the number of parmeters for atmospheric
media is intimidating.  it will take some experimentation to get a
feel for what does what, especially with the render times.

i guess i should shuffle over to megapov... i've been fighting it tooth
and nail.  i'm just a beginner.  i should be satisfied with the very
significant power of 3.1g.

thanks, miker


"MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote in message news:3bd803ba@news.povray.org...
> hello,
>
> i'm sorta uncomfortable asking this question because i figure
> it must be a faq somewhere, but i couldn't find it so here goes:
>
> i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
> visible.  how do i do that?  is that a "photon" thing?  i've got
> the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
> need the light rays here soon.
>
> my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
> catches it, but thats just a guess.
>
> thank you, miker
>
>

Post a reply to this message

MR wrote:
> 
> hi guys,
> 
> monday morning and i messed with it a little bit this weekend.  the
> problem i'm seeing is that i expect the fogginess to just show up
> in the light rays coming thru the window, but the whole darn scene
> is foggy.  i'm not a happy camper.  i need to get smarter.

Take a look at this -
http://free.prohosting.com/~olana/povray/media2/media2.html

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

MR schrieb in Nachricht <3bdd5c20$1@news.povray.org>...
>the number of parmeters for atmospheric
>media is intimidating.  it will take some experimentation to get a
>feel for what does what, especially with the render times.


If you can, don't use atmospheric media. Specify I box or cone to restrict
the media to where it is needed. The parameters are the same as which
atmospheric media, but this will make a big difference in rendertime
(often). In addition, it will help you to get rid of the foggy look all over
the scene. Maybe you will have to play with "density" to get a smooth
transition to the non-fog area, but that depends on your settings.

Hth,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

thanks guys,

i got the file you linked me to, ken.  it looks pretty descriptive.
it makes me nervous though that both his example and the
media2 one in the scenes files occurs in very dark scenes.  i
can't see how the colors are effected in the background.

i'm going to sit down and carefully go over all the media docs
for 3.1g and the link you gave me and then i'm also looking
into what marc proposed about containing the media in an
object.  and then i'm going to get my hands dirty and knock
out a few renders.

the 4.6 interior documentation is a bit confusing at first glance.
in 4.6 it states that (paraphrased) "an interior only applies to
solid objects", but then in 4.6.2 it states "to fill an object with
any kind of particles it first has to be made hollow."  i equated
the "particles" with interior, so i can't figure out whether a
media container needs to be hollow or solid.

thanks again, miker



"MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote in message news:3bdd5c20$1@news.povray.org...
> hi guys,
>
> monday morning and i messed with it a little bit this weekend.  the
> problem i'm seeing is that i expect the fogginess to just show up
> in the light rays coming thru the window, but the whole darn scene
> is foggy.  i'm not a happy camper.  i need to get smarter.
>
> i looked at the media2 pov scene and played off of it.  because i
> only wanted the foggy look in the light rays coming thru the window,
> i set up a spotlight outside and pointing in at the right angle with
> the media turned on.  everything is still foggy.  i'm going to play
> with it again this evening.  the number of parmeters for atmospheric
> media is intimidating.  it will take some experimentation to get a
> feel for what does what, especially with the render times.
>
> i guess i should shuffle over to megapov... i've been fighting it tooth
> and nail.  i'm just a beginner.  i should be satisfied with the very
> significant power of 3.1g.
>
> thanks, miker
>
>
> "MR" <a### [at] bnet> wrote in message news:3bd803ba@news.povray.org...
> > hello,
> >
> > i'm sorta uncomfortable asking this question because i figure
> > it must be a faq somewhere, but i couldn't find it so here goes:
> >
> > i'd like to have light streaming in a window with the light rays
> > visible.  how do i do that?  is that a "photon" thing?  i've got
> > the wall and a desk and i'm modelling a window now, so i'll
> > need the light rays here soon.
> >
> > my idea was to throw a light fog in the room and see if the light
> > catches it, but thats just a guess.
> >
> > thank you, miker
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

MR schrieb in Nachricht <3bded545$1@news.povray.org>...

>i equated
>the "particles" with interior, so i can't figure out whether a
>media container needs to be hollow or solid.


Hollow.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message