Been registered here a while ago, gave up blender and havn’t touched it for well over half a year i think, Never ever really got far with it… now on my first day back in to blender (after watching the new video tutorials =) ) i have created something well worth to be shown, though it is common and basic, i’m proud of it atm =)
Images on other post from me - stupid image host…
nerds going to a Trekkie convention?
Looks very realistic, but you need to fix the angle. The photograph was taken on a slight angle, so you need to balance that by putting the spoiler on an angle as well. It appears to be leaning to the left.
Think thats a photo AFAIK.
A funny photo, but still a photo.
I have seen this ages ago on another website, thus my suspicion.
Please correct me if Im wrong.
If you go to the parent folder it was modified 11-Jan-03, so this is an old pic. It’s a slightly different size, but it’s the same content.
I checked into this; the server lukus001 posted to does allow hotlinking, and this isn’t some kind of 404 image. Thus, this looks like intentional spam.
@lukus001: Please don’t try to pull others’ work off as your own. It’s just not right. Do you have an explanation for this?
Oh geez, I can’t believe you posted this as your own. Why? %|
i think he meant to post some other image
hmm if you go to propities and copy and paste it brings up some cubes http://upload.pifiu.com/uploads/2004-dec/cubes2.jpg
This is all just a bit odd. Lukus upload your image to www.imageshack.us , at the moment it all looking a bit suss, and remember to preview your posts.
It’s all a bit odd, because I clicked on the URL that fudge gave and I was redirected to
if you copy and paste the link into your browser it works… lukus i really sugest you get a new webhost
That did not even work. Firefox.
Hmmm, i beleive there is some error, but you should be seeing a stack of reflective cubes… I know i am.
Here image shaks one
Or in Mozilla, since I did that too quite many times.
Well, good thing it wasnt intentional, then.
I have to say, the first one was a lot more realistic Seriously, though - I like:) The second one has a nice feel about it.
Okay then…Your picture is very nice, much better than anything I could have done at that stage…
Sorry for accusing you of stealing someone else’s work.
I still don’t understand what happened in the first post… can anyone explain???
(kudos to the very fast finding of the very same picture elsewhere…)
Well that was a strange experience. I was never able to get cubes to show up, regardless of how much copying and pasting I did.
Lukus – your first real image ( ) looks decent; it looks like you have figured out subdivision surfaces and raytracing.
The second one looks much better, though; the lighting is much more interesting, if a bit overexposed. The overexposure really accentuates the darkness between the cubes – good use of ambient occlusion.
Nice job on this.
image host has some stupid anti-hotlinking thing on at the moment, i should be getting some free hosting from a friend’s reseller so i should be ok in the future =) On another note, under the circumstance of what happened i’m not bothered of the accusing/suggesting.
*first render was in internal blender, second was with YafRay.
*All materials were set to the colour white with a light grey colour for ‘mirror’ to produce a “realistic” chrome effect (is that effectivly right?)
*I also used a photon lamp with yafray, but i’m not really sure how that changed the render at all? though i think it got rid of the grainy effect on low quality.
So i asume, the first render is under exposed, and the second is just a little over exposed (within yafray tweak settings) though, i think the raytracing is more efective on yafray and has picked up more of the white sky, making the top of the cubes … white?
also don’t really know if it is good use of ambient occlusion? as i don’t actually know what that means lol, somone care to explain?
Ah, I said “ambient occlusion” because a similar effect could be achieved in Blender’s internal renderer. You can read up on Blender’s AO at http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Ambient_Occlusion.231.0.html . Basically it’s a hack to approximate global illumination.
The first render isn’t underexposed; it’s actually exposed correctly. It would be underexposed if there were lots of dark areas where details aren’t visible.
That’s a good point; I didn’t think at all about that. I don’t think it’s true, though. I can get a similar overexposed effect in Blender’s internal renderer using only a really bright light – no reflection required. In your first image, you can see reflections of the sky, but since RayMir isn’t set to 1.0, they aren’t completely white. Your second image looks like the cubes are more reflective, probably due to an inconsistency between Blender’s and Yafray’s material settings. Thus, it looks like your second image has both brighter light and higher reflection, resulting in much, much brighter cube tops and highlights.
Where did you position your photon lamp for the Yafray render? The ground plane in the first image has a giant specular highlight in the lower left corner, while there is no such highlight in the second image.