glossines - between blured and not too blured?

Common Common :: Public
1

Hi,

Is there a way to make a material with refl. glossines blured but not as blured as 0.8? I ask this because when I use it at 0.999 to make it almost with no blur, it turns out kind of wierd (horrible).
I saw a shellac material, but it´s hard to configure and too slow to render, so…

Thanks in advanced.

2

You could try .81 or .82 or .83 or .84 or .85 or .86 or .87 or .88…all the way up to .999 and that will give you something in between! :smile:

3

well, no exactly. At least not in my case. When I use 0.999 it just doesn´t look right. I should post an image, but I´m kind of lazy. I just wanted to verify if someone had the same problem as me.

Thanks anyway.

4

I think what Tim is saying is that there are a lot of numbers between .8 and .999 that you could use to get the look your after. Test render, test render, test render, thats how you learn the program the best way.

5

0.99 looks wierd here as well. But, as said before, try 0.9 or so…

Also, from my experience, the results are far more clean without interpolation checked, but then of course, you’d better decrease the samples otherwise the render will take too long.

For example, try 0.95 at 8 samples and no interpolation.

Please tell us if this helped. Well, I hope it did. :wink:

Regards,

Nenad

6

if you have the time a pic would be usefull to see what you mean by “weird”

7

Yes, images or better explanations…

When you just say how can I do this or that so it doesn’t look “weird” it’s as if you’re talking to yourself and kinda negates a forum environment. Weird is a little too relative when you’re dealing with variables :lol:

--Jon

8

Hi

ok, here are two images. They are showing the same cylinder. The first one has 0.99, and the second has 0.8

What I looking for is something between the second image and chrome material.

Thanks guys

9

… do you not know how to count numbers? … .81 .82. .83 .84 . 85 .86 .87.. etc.

and if the glossy looks kinda splochy, turn up the samples a bit. =P it aint that hard to figure out compadre.

10

daftpunk: do you know how to read?

11

:lol:

12

:lol:

13

Looking at the image you’ve posted, it seems that you’re using interpolated glossy reflexions. Try leaving the option unchecked and, in order to save render time, you can decrease the samples. The result will be far more accurate/precise/sharp, somewhat slower though…

Regards,

Nenad

14

Nenad: slower indeed. But its true the results are much better.

thanks

15

Glad it helped. In some cases, you can go as low as 5 or 6 samples (maybe even less) and still get nice results but with a more reasonable render time of course.

Regards,

Nenad