FA+
Shop
999
Views
Views
28
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Still Life
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 960 x 600
File Size 388.3 kB
Report this content
More from Twile
30+ hours of coding. 5.5 hours of rendering. That's what this image took.
I realize it's not furry, and I realize it's not an especially novel, thought-provoking arrangement of elements. It's fairly bland and uncreative. But yanno what? I don't care. I put a lot of effort into writing this ray tracer, a lot of thought and attention to detail.
This is for a class I'm working on. Over 3 billion virtual rays were cast into the scene to bounce around and calculate color contributions. When I'm done, I plan to have support for directional lights, physically accurate glass, polygon meshes, and more.
I realize it's not furry, and I realize it's not an especially novel, thought-provoking arrangement of elements. It's fairly bland and uncreative. But yanno what? I don't care. I put a lot of effort into writing this ray tracer, a lot of thought and attention to detail.
This is for a class I'm working on. Over 3 billion virtual rays were cast into the scene to bounce around and calculate color contributions. When I'm done, I plan to have support for directional lights, physically accurate glass, polygon meshes, and more.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Still Life
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 960 x 600px
File Size 388.3 kB
Yeah, actually getting some circles to appear is as simple as iterating through each pixel, making a ray, and finding out if it intersects a sphere. Color and shading are trivial as well. And hell, even antialiasing and such aren't too hard, you just change where the rays are pointing and average their results. But finding places where you can cut corners to save on speed, or improve quality at no extra cost, that's the fun challenge :3
Yes and no. I appreciate how they're able to do things so efficiently and with so many features, but at the same time, the fact that I'm able to do this after a few weeks of instruction in graphics, and implement more advanced features both for ray tracing and rasterized graphics, means that I'm not -as- impressed as I once was. Texturing an object sounds so hard, right? Well no, you just look up a coordinate for each pixel and paint it there. As we also wrote stuff for pixel/vertex shading and rasterization in software, even that wizardry has been explained and proven to be fairly simple :p
Like I said, none of it is particularly hard, but... put together *ALL* the elements that is in a typical package, and it becomes clear that it's a lot of software that's getting written, is all I was really getting at. More.. the volume of code to add all those features.
Key places to look at are the edges up top (the blending to black isn't as smooth as it could be, for computational reasons), the complete blackness itself (unrealistic!), the way the shadows have completely black regions (should be some slight ambient light bouncing around), and how sharp the edges are between the blue and gray, in the area which is in focus. The top edges can be fixed with a higher rendering setting, the blackness can be substituted for some other background, the shadows can easily have an ambient term added... and I have no idea why the areas in focus aren't antialiased. They should be. And overall, the scene is too clean... the arrangement is flawless, the gray and blue are completely uniform... yeah. There are differences, but if you just glance at it for an instant, it looks pretty good :3
Well, normally the rays for any given pixel are determined by two points--the focal point "behind" the screen, and a pixel grid arranged in space. To make depth-of-field work, you have to do two things: make the rays start at some point on a virtual lens, rather than always at the same focal point, and make them point towards a point on the focal plane, at a certain distance.
Oh yeah. And you have to take multiple samples for each pixel and average them, otherwise you just get a randomly wiggly image. Anyway, the effect of doing that is if you have things on the focal plane, all the rays converge there, because they're all pointed there... if they hit something before or after the focal plane, they won't all hit the same place, and so it'll average everything they hit.
Sweetness =) Not sure if you can do it in code but you might want to play with "Apeture" or something like that? Basically where the field of focus is. Might be something fun to play with! The reason I bring it up is it might look even more dramatic if your "forward" balls [tee hee] were a little more out of focus, then you get really focused balls, and finally it fades off into fuzzy balls [Tee hee] again in the back. =)
Anyhow, really cool stuff! ^..^
Anyhow, really cool stuff! ^..^
It just scratches the surface of what's possible with ray tracing ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.....s_800_edit.png for example) but it's still neat, I think ^^
If you want to see lots of incredible ray-traced images, take a look at the forum
CG Choice Gallery: 3D
at
http://forums.cgsociety.org/
Lots of other techniques are used by artists there, too.
CG Choice Gallery: 3D
at
http://forums.cgsociety.org/
Lots of other techniques are used by artists there, too.
1280x800 (laptop) but I prefer to simply center it. :3 I like the black border. Its where I keep my icons :P
Plus it makes it less obvious that they utterly phailed at repairing the screen when the bulbs burned out and fixing it caused the rightmost 200 pixels or so to fade to about 60% brightness. Rather distracting. :/ But it beats the entire screen being at .1% brightness. :V
Plus it makes it less obvious that they utterly phailed at repairing the screen when the bulbs burned out and fixing it caused the rightmost 200 pixels or so to fade to about 60% brightness. Rather distracting. :/ But it beats the entire screen being at .1% brightness. :V
We have to have support for some kind of mesh file, but that's about all. Right now, it just takes xml files which have specially coded data for spheres and boxes. Nothing else is presently supported, though over the next 2 days we have to add support for triangle meshes and various transformations.
I have no idea what this actually is. Ray tracing... wuh!?
But, it sounds interesting and looks pretty damn amazing. Way to go, fuzzydragon!
I do know, however, that those are not dragon balls. I saw those in the last drawing you submitted by lilglenndoggy, and its obvious that dragon balls are actually much much bigger than what is here :B
But, it sounds interesting and looks pretty damn amazing. Way to go, fuzzydragon!
I do know, however, that those are not dragon balls. I saw those in the last drawing you submitted by lilglenndoggy, and its obvious that dragon balls are actually much much bigger than what is here :B
forgot to mention. I normally don't even read the documentation i just go at it and render. what i noticed most besides the DOF feature was the specularitys and reflections are quite nice. you really should make this a opensource project on http://www.sourceforge.net/
Comments