Ruby on my mind

[Sarge-David]

dont mind any of the background, its ugly.

im trying to make this stone look good...
3different shades of red(stone color)(2 surface shaders)
a reflective shader to get that nice look to it.

i am wondering about the lambert shader, i hread it made a kind of...see through thing, but have not found it to great sucess.

what i want to do with it is, make it pretty red, shiny, and alittle translusent.
i just want it to be the most part of the micture

also....i want some kind of...build up to the stone...so it does not look like its sitting on the ground but comming out of it...how can i acheive this effect without searching all over the ground for a good stone?

[ProjectX]

probably best to wait until sub-surface scattering becomes available. Then it will look a lot better.

In the mean time try adding a few rough bits of stone to it, to make it look more like a naturally found gem.

[king_tiger_666]

maybe a texture added to it?

[Mohawk20]

Are you looking for a result like this? http://www.terrabits.org/pictures/Images/Rock%20Face%20Crystals%206.png

I made that with only the lambert shader, applied to the fake rocks shader.

The quality sucks, and it still took a day to render, but then again, my pc isn't the newest.

[king_tiger_666]

that would look great done on a higher setting and perhaps some leveling to enhance the red

[Sarge-David]

there are 3 different colors of red in there!
im at a lose in where to go for a more...rough cut look.

i used surface shaders(2 children)
on it for the color. the reflective shader to give it a nice shine.
i just wish that it was alittle see through on the edges...ill find a pic and edit this post with it.

something like this

but less cut, and more stone looking like

the closer stone, but better on the eyes lol.

[Mohawk20]

I'm still convinced the Lambert shader would give the best results, you just have to play with the settings a bit...

[old_blaggard]

Lambert shader is going to help, but you're not going to get very close to realism until we get subsurface scattering and transparency.

[Cyber-Angel]

I think that you should have a look at this photograph I found of ruby in its natural, uncut state: it might help

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gdphoto.com/geology/images/F12672-Uncut-Ruby-close-up.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gdphoto.com/geology/F12672Uncutruby.asp&h=192&w=308&sz=14&hl=en&start=21&tbnid=IBVwgLcoKybPuM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2B(uncut)%2Bruby%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

The "Fire" in any gem stone weather that be ruby, diamond etc, only really comes about though the cutting of the facets and polishing of the stone by some one that is highly skilled and trained in this area other wise they tend not to have much luster at all.

Regard to you.

Cyber-Angel   

[Sethren]

You do not need SSS for a fine cut ruby. At present i am working in various gemstone cuts inside Vue 6 and all that i am doing to each gemstone is a diffuse color, transparency, highlights, refraction with caustics and reflection.

Here is a diamond test i had done in Vue 6, what would make this a ruby is one thing and that is changing the color of the diffusion in the shader but that is all.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7375/test1jg8.png


Now if it were in it's raw state like with the links that Cyber-Angel had provided then yes, i can easily see a case were SSS is needed as when you look closely at the raw ruby there is varying degrees of translucency that is responsible for the sub surface of light scattering.