- Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:12 pm
#52768
Herve,
when you look at a photograph of fire it's impossible to tell that it's a 3D object. You can fake fire with many 2D overlapping objects.
It's something I would experiment with anyway... should cut render time down some.
depends if it's animated.. if it's going to be a still image you can make a couple 2D flame 'shapes' oriented toward the viewer.
just a thot.
nice render, getting REALLY close to the reference image.
edit:
forgot to mention something... Keep in mind the mechanics of vision, and what happens when we look at a flame. Just like a camera, our eyes would 'stop' down to 'see' the flames. In doing so it would make the surroundings underexposed... like looking at someone in front of a bright window (looking out the window would make the person underexposed). Even with the huge dynamic range offered to us by our eyes we would still have a hard time seeing both environments in proper exposure.
Thus, a fire may look like your last render if we had unlimited dynamic range... but for us mere mortals we would either see the surrounding area and bright featureless flames, or red flames with hilight details but really dark underexposed surroundings... but not both at once.
Ian
If we had just one lowly SuperStarDestroyer, all of earth's problems would rapidly become rather trite. I mean, who worries about war in the middle east when a 1.5km death triangle is in orbit.
- By hwolfejr
- By choo-chee
