Started by Dune, January 25, 2015, 03:14:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: j meyer on February 01, 2015, 12:35:50 PM
But I know that's just me and the majority likes to have all in one for everything.
Shaders,whole applications or whatever.

Actually we don't know much if the majority wants that.
I suppose it might be so, but when i wrote what i want, it was in a way a probe if others would be say anything in that way.
But i got only silence. So hard to say what others think.

I am in a awkward stage just now that i feel more like a technician the last months then a guy who wants to make art.
I feel the boundary should be narrower then it is now (of course Teragen has come a long way).
Otherwise many 3D software does have the same problems less or more in that aspect.
More tools-nodes are nice but there should be more easier ways to use them together too. 
More nodes doesn't mean better easier use all the time.

Michael's(Thebadger) wish for more inputs for masks for example is another example that there might be other things to think about.

Maybe a thread where we (me actually) don't hijack Ulco's thread :) and say a little more what we want or not might be better.

Sorry Ulco. If i want to say more it will be on a different thread. 


No worries, Kadri.

Some shaders may have been designed for a specific use before others came in and can't just be dumped, I guess, due to backward compatability. If you get to know the different shaders you easily use them beside eachother, no need for an all-in node... for me that is. Masking one by another, like a reflective shader by surface shader or a merged set of shaders, no need for more mask inputs (for me).
Like, just now, I noticed that a Lambert shader followed by a reflective shader takes out the translucency, but when merged (add) it works fine.

j meyer

Last week I didn't find the time to play/test with the haze-on-card-test file,
so I just try to catch up.Should have said said earlier,but thought it wasn't
necessary.A mistake on my side.Sorry.

Another thing I noticed yesterday:put an imported sphere in front of the cube
in the aforementioned file,connected a glass shader to the sphere insread of
the default shader.Reflectivity set to zero everything else default.
Remember the render subdiv is set to 1 and it can't be reflected from behind
the camera as  a)reflectivity is set to zero and b) the cube is visible.

Has anybody noticed already and or can confirm,please?


I think the blocky sides in the sphere in this setup are because of the frustrum limitation. I gather that's what you mean?

j meyer

Yes,that's what I mean.
Frustrum limitation,wouldn't that be the reflection from behind the camera/viewer?

Edit:looked up frustrum meanwhile and it seems to be a greater region than I thought.
      So,yes that may be the explanation.Thanks Ulco.


Yes, and it's big because the ball works as a more-than-fisheye lens.

j meyer

I do agree.

Hope I finally understood your original intention now.


Is that what you had in mind?
Sorry for the white outlining.


I got this far as well, but there's still a haze in the parts that are not taken out by the opacity, but it is less noticable, I agree. The white line is probably because of the premultiplying.
This can be done with less nodes; the default for the opacity, then the surface shader on which (as child) the glass and then the image map. I also had trouble making the cloud dark, after using the mask as such, then it's really outlined, and I would like it to 'fade into oblivion'. I might have another look at it...

j meyer

Getting the cloud darker was no problem,I had problems getting it lighter.
Didn't optimize the setup,easier to work with to me.
And the remaining "haze" (missing AO) within the smoke won't be noticeable
to a viewer that doesn't know about it.It'd be just a grey part of the smoke.
But of course you would know.I'm familiar with that problem,too. :)
Tried it with a smoke object also,but the results weren't better,maybe if done
with a 16bit or 32bit image,but not from the jpg.You could try with mudbox.


I just set up another test. I think this is the best I can get, and I actually don't see a haze here. Thanks for your efforts as well, I think we can leave it at this, don't you?`We wouldn't want to get too picky  ;)

j meyer

Wholeheartedly agree! ;)


Quote from: Dune on February 02, 2015, 11:35:42 AM
I think the blocky sides in the sphere in this setup are because of the frustrum limitation. I gather that's what you mean?

This region can be changed using the "ray detail region" setting. This is a case where it's useful to choose "360 degree detail (optimal)".

Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.