2 funrenders

[maxer]

i made this only just for fun and i hate teapots


klick klack

[Gijs]

The last one would be nice with a small touch of motion blur. Nice renderings nevertheless!

[siliconbauhaus]

maxer.....where do you come up with these scene ideas?

awesome work mate

[flino2004]

I like them...very realistic images
the first one looks like Bin Laden's teapot

[ShaunDon]

God yes do I hate teapots. When I went to school they tried to explain "oh, but they have intersecting geometry, great for testing shaders." Well, f them, they suck.

Very nice, man. How'd you do the explosion? I like it a lot.

Shaun

[percydaman]

haha cool. I love teapots. First thing I thought of when I saw the teapot, was that movie trailer voice:

"In a world.... where teapots explode....."

[lukx]

sweeeet

[tom schuelke]

Alllways nice your scenes

only thing i was wondering, theres no depth of field in the reflection ot the ball to see


Tom

[DaForce]

Very nice renders

I quite like the moody sky in the first render....i dont suppose its a "publically available" sky is it

[marco]

only thing i was wondering, theres no depth of field in the reflection ot the ball to see

Tom,

actually I think this behaviour is correct, the reflection should NOT contain DOF because there is no depth in the flat surface of the ball....
(just take a look at the Z-buffer of this frame)

correct me if I'm wrong ?

Marco

[Da_elf]

ive told people before that things reflected should be out of focus but people looked at my like i was crazy. this is how i see it as being. remember. a mirror isnt a flat image without depth. it does have visual depth. marco. if you look at the average z-buffer when looking though a glass window the z-buffer stops at the window. it doesnt take into concideration reflections or opacity. does this mean that inside the room wouldnt be out of focus if you focused on a fly on the window simply because the window doesnt have depth? the z-buffer isnt physically correct. i did write a tutorial about this on 3dluvr a while back. the use of fog i found worked better than the z-buffer since for reflects and also refracts.



and i thought vray used to do physically correct DOF back in its early DOF days. have things changed? or is he using a post processed DOF

[vlado]

The ball has a curved surface which counters the blurring effect of the DOF (curved mirrors act like lenses). If you had a box with a flat surface, and not a sphere, you would see the DOF effect in the reflection as well.

Elf, you are correct, but only for flat surfaces. Curved surfaces change the picture. So in that regard, VRay's DOF is quite correct.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Da_elf]

i thought i remembered vray doing physically accurate reflections + DOF. thanks for clearing it up. i think i do see sliiiight DOF of the corner of the room reflected on the right side of the sphere

[percydaman]

ya just tested and both vlado's assertions are correct.

[marco]

thank you all,

I was wrong......I made a big mistake by treating the reflections on the ball as a (2D)texture.
Da_elf nice drawing which explains it all very clearly.

I'll never forget this one,

Marco