Regarding this error...


Look at the outline on the closer bike here...


I think you can see the same "error".
Carl

Here is another render with outlines only on black areas (windshield and winds) and the chassis parts.

http://digitalstratum.com/images/tron/orange_lightcycle_2.png
That's a 1280x1024 image. Here is a 800x600 of the same image:


Matthew

wwwmwww Wrote:WOW!!! Now if only POV-Ray could do it that easily...

Well, Realsoft3D has a free trial... If anyone wants my lightcycle model file, just let me know.

wwwmwww Wrote: Two Points: (1) Your "foot rest" is still outlined. The circle up against the chassis should be there but the outer one shouldn't be. (2) The spokes I don't think have outlines either. Actually I believe they are white with an ambient light value set to one so you shouldn't ever see a shadow on the spokes for example. As the outline is white even if it is there you shouldn't be able to see it.

Point 1, fixed. I actually left the outline around the footrest on purpose the first time, but after looking at some footage, it does seem to only be around the circle where the footrest intersects the chassis, as you pointed out.

Point 2, fixed. The spokes were already supposed to be all white all the time, I'm not sure how they got changed, but they were only 50% illuminated, so a quick change to 100% took care of that.

New 1280x1024 image:
http://digitalstratum.com/images/tron/lookfeel_1.png
Same image, only smaller:

wwwmwww Wrote:P.S. I was also about to add that the black wheel hubs weren't outlined but after looking at a few screen caps already in this thread it appears they shouldn't be. Hmmm... I wonder why?

Well, we know there is no geometry that is technically the front hub. The black on the inside of the front wheel is just color. As for the rear hub, if you outlined it, that would be the same as outlining the rear wheel since they touch. So there really is no reason to highlight that area, it is taken care of by the color difference. The chassis parts, however, are all the same color, and thus get lost if the shadows and need an outline to see them (in some cases.)

Matthew

matthew180 Wrote: Yeah, I know. But the higher quality render made the noise factor go down and I lost some of that "look and feel" I was going for. I'll probably have to use a texture instead of a light. But you are also correct in that the final product was due to many processes of transfering from computer to film, to post production, editing, etc.. But it does give us the look and feeling we associate with. Matthew

Why you don't add grain after the rendering? a simple noise filter of aprogram like photoshop or gimp can done this task wery well. Also add grain to the final image make dirty the outline too, so it make the image look uniform and consistent.

And for the shading whitch kind of shading you use? make the material 100 self-lightning and give at the diffuse channel a gradient lightning-oriented: black->orange->orangelight for the chassis and black->greyblue->greybluelight for the engine.



p.s. I want to say something about the strange seeming shadow behaviour that sometimes confuse us to recognize the right geometry by shading. this is very close to a limits that affect old 3d software (professional too, like Topas, in early '90): the shadow generation is made in a second stage in a apposite buffer, and after this composed o the geometry based on the z-depth of the scene, trimmed by a threshold called shadow bias.

If the bias is too high, the shadow looks good in all circumstances but it seems to be too separated from the object(like an offset). If the shadow bias is too low or zero, the shadow position is right but it may appear as a stream or incomplete. Unfortunately (ironically)is not possible to recreate this condition on actual 3d program, the cheapest too, thank to the progress of the render engine.

In the past I damn it like a crazy because in some situation I can't avoid this problem due the nature of the scene, like a incident light.

If I find an image can explain this I post it, but for now i've find a power point file that show this limitation at page 8:

www-csl.csres.utexas.edu/users/billmark/teach/cs395T-03-spring/presentations/Feb20-shadow-algorithms.ppt
and this(starting from 'shadow bias nightmare')
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/graphics/classes/6.837/F02/lectures/26nov2002-6.pdf
also this (sliding down at 'Problems' point)

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~blloyd/comp258/progress10-15.html

this problem it may be something similar to the artifacts found in some LC sequence.

hope is something useful

lucaorder abortion pill morning after pill price where to buy abortion pill

matthew180 Wrote: I try to get my final result with my 3D software instead of doing post-render processing, but for something like this post processing would probably work better.

I usually try the same as well. I try to think about doing animations and having to post process every frame would be a real pain... atleast with the software I typically play with. For still shots it's great and if you have software that will allow you to batch process many frames it's probably not a bad idea for animations either.

I also personally don't care as much about copying the exact look and feel as much as I do about the shape. I want the shape to be exact so everyone knows what it is but I enjoy playing with new looks and feel too. I love stuff like this of yours:


and these of Cueball for example



They don't have the same look and feel of the movie but we've now got tools to play with they didn't have 20+ years ago and I for one am having fun playing with different looks.

Carl

zook_one Wrote:I really like those internal glowing bikes. Thats more of a "painting with light" / "cycles made of light" (as they marketed them as) look then was actually achieved in the movie. Great Job. An animation like that would be sick!

Cueball achieved that look with radiosity. POV-Ray does radiosity and I really want to get to the point I can copy that look too. From the little playing with radiosity I've never been able to do I currently don't get near as nice a result but I've seen similiar stuff from other POV-Ray users so it should just be a matter of finding the right settings. Unsually radiosity adds quite a bit to the render times so I'm not sure if an animation would be practical or not.

Cueball, if you see this, how is your arena coming along?

Carl

matthew180 Wrote: Any further thoughts about the straight vs. curved chassis segment between the fender and canopy shoulder? I posted an image a couple of posts ago that shows it pretty straight, but no one commented. I think I'm going to modify it to be straight, even though I prefer the curve (however, with a curve we wind up with an error.)

I've already swithed to a strait part too. It elimates two primitives from my model and my test renders look pretty good so far. I've made a few tweaks as well and as always you can't tweak just one shape without affecting all the others. So let me clean things up a bit more and I'll be posting some images soon.

Carlorder abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

The quality is terrible but it does give a glimps at how the primatives were used to create the Light Cycle.

order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

WOW! this is the holy grail for a Tron fan!order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

Sketch Wrote:That's an image from "Smithsonian" magazine that had a section about Tron. I've got the issue. It has some great photos of what they did behind the scenes.

And you will be scanning / posting the images when?

What is the date of that issue?

Matthew
order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill