 | | | 16bit render mapping? (forgot the images) | 16bit render mapping? (forgot the images) 2004-05-20 - By Francois Lord
Back
Yeah but when using uniqueUVs, xsi (or mentalray) doesn't deal very well
with the discontinuitiesin the projection using the others displacement
settings.
I got the Man Character model and the Man body model in XSI. I put a
uniqueUVs projection on the Body and ran M. Isner's script to extract
displacement.
This is the result using fine displacement set at 0.1 and min 0, max 7.
No view dependant.
This is with the parametric displacement set at 4 steps.
--
Flord
kim aldis wrote:
>You surprise me. Fine is faster and is generally the more reliable. I've had
>scenes that simply won't render any other way.
>
>
>
>>-- --Original Message-- --
>>From: owner-xsi@(protected)
>>[mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of Francois Lord
>>Sent: 20 May 2004 16:55
>>To: XSI@(protected)
>>Subject: Re: 16bit render mapping?
>>
>>I'va had better results using the parametric displacement
>>instead of fine or lenght/angle/distance when used with unique uvs.
>>You can also wait for v4.0 and use the new unique UVs. :-)
>>
>>--
>>Flord
>>
>>
>>
>>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859 (See http://ISO-8859.ora-code.com)-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#cccccc" text="#000000">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859 (See http://ISO-8859.ora-code.com)-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859 (See http://ISO-8859.ora-code.com)-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
Yeah but when using uniqueUVs, xsi (or mentalray) doesn't deal very
well with the discontinuitiesin the projection using the others
displacement settings.<br>
<br>
I got the Man Character model and the Man body model in XSI. I put a
uniqueUVs projection on the Body and ran M. Isner's script to extract
displacement. <br>
<br>
<img moz-do-not-send="true" height="487" width="554"
alt="image of fine displacement"
src="imap://flord@(protected):143/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX.Sent%3E1015?part
=1.1.2&filename=UniqueUVs_Displacement_fine.png"><br>
This is the result using fine displacement set at 0.1 and min 0, max 7.
No view dependant.<br>
<br>
<img moz-do-not-send="true" height="487" width="554"
alt="image of parametric displacement"
src="imap://flord@(protected):143/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX.Sent%3E1015?part
=1.1.3&filename=UniqueUVs_Displacement_parametric.png"><br>
This is with the parametric displacement set at 4 steps.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Flord<br>
<br>
<br>
kim aldis wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid200405201734.i4KHY1mX018492@(protected)"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You surprise me. Fine is faster and is generally the more
reliable. I've had
scenes that simply won't render any other way.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-- --Original Message-- --
From: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)">owner
-xsi@(protected)</a>
[<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)">mailto
:owner-xsi@(protected)</a>] On Behalf Of Francois Lord
Sent: 20 May 2004 16:55
To: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:XSI@(protected)">XSI@(protected)
.COM</a>
Subject: Re: 16bit render mapping?
I'va had better results using the parametric displacement
instead of fine or lenght/angle/distance when used with unique uvs.
You can also wait for v4.0 and use the new unique UVs. :-)
--
Flord
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|