clear water project

[bubba]

but I can't get it to look like the water is rippling over the leaves.

 

Here is the project. I hope someone can help.

 

Water_B.prj

[Rodney]

Bubba,

Can you provide more information on the steps you've taken?

Not everyone has access to the books by Jeff Paries.

[bubba]

Sure, here are the instructions I am following:

 

Clear_Water.pdf

 

Hope they help.

[Rodney]

Thanks, you said something about water rippling over leaves?

 

Do you have some images of leaves?

[bubba]

Supposedly the image is in the project itself. That is where I found them. Here I embedded everything and saved the project.

 

 

 

Water_B.prj

[Rodney]

I won't be able to look at the project until later today but unless you create the leaves as part of the project they won't be embedded. Images don't embed in projects, they must be associated/collected with the project or in the case of current versions of A:M may be consolidated in a Zip file from the A:M Menu.

 

Back when Jeff Paries wrote his books Consolidation (the storing of all resources in a single compressed file) wasn't an option in A:M. Embedding still works the same way (i.e. images don't embed).

 

Perhaps the leaf images are on the CD?

[bubba]

I checked the CD - here is the image.

 

Leaves.tga

 

 

TTFN

[Rodney]

Outstanding.

 

If someone doesn't scrub through and decipher the project for you I'll look into it first chance I get.

[robcat2075]

I temporarily set the transparency to zero and could see spec reflection of some ripples on the black surface. So at least the waves are there.

 

I rendered one second and saw that they are moving VERY slowly. What parameter in the wave material controls their speed? Try making that about 10x higher and see what you get. Also aim the Keylight nearly perpendicular to the surface.

 

 

 

I'm a bit doubtful about his expectation that the single plane would make distortions in the picture below. I think you would need to model a box with thickness like a thick plane of glass (and set Refraction to greater than 1) and put the ripples on the front surface.

 

I got some visible distortion that way.

 

 

Note that I've added an "all" group to make the whole box transparent.

 

 

Water_B2.prj

[bubba]

I think it is either Propagate or Cycle (or both.) Amplitude controls how big (high) the waves are and Length is distance between waves.

[robcat2075]

is it possible some parameter needs to be animated in the chor to make the waves move?

 

Just for clarity, you might strip that down to one wave material and test settings.

[NancyGormezano]

Bubba - I took a look at your original project - And I noticed that the ambiance intensity was set for both the backdrop (85%) and water groups (20%) - those settings are probably preventing you from seeing the effect clearly. A lot of times, old models from previous versions of A:M come in with ambiance set to some value. Probably shouldn't be set if you want to clearly see what is going on and probably should work with general lighting instead.

 

So all I did was change the ambiance settings on the backdrop (0%) and on the water group (not set = 0)

 

I haven't looked at Robert's project - so maybe he has changed those settings already.

[bubba]

Nancy I am sorry but I still don't see it. I downloaded the project file I uploaded earlier and made the changes you directed. But I still don't see the waves. I am uploaded the file again. Please compare it to yours and see if you can find any difference. Thanks.

 

Water_Bagain.prj

[NancyGormezano]

Nancy I am sorry but I still don't see it.

 

Do you see a difference in the images I posted above? Do you see the waves on them? If not, then I would say your monitor might need calibration of some sort.

 

I will look at your new project - but please answer the above first.

 

EDIT: if you are on a MAC, then perhaps there is a difference from ver 16 32 bit PC version.

[bubba]

Yes, I definitely see the waves in the left-hand picture.

[NancyGormezano]

Yes, I definitely see the waves in the left-hand picture.

 

You should also be able to see them in the right - even more clearly - maybe your display is not bright enough?, or contrast is funny? or black isn't black? or your gamma is gramma or grampa?

 

EDIT: I use a crt monitor - you are using lcd? mac?

[bubba]

You are correct. In the brighter left-hand side I see the waves on the outside of the backing, against the blue. In the darker right-hand I also see the waves, but this time over the leaves.

 

What is gamma?

[bubba]

Ah, I might have to chalk this up to "Newbee" error. I wasn't rendering the frame or frames out, I was just looking at it in the chor window and moving the slider back and forth.

[NancyGormezano]

What is gamma?

 

Ack. me and my big mouth. I was afraid you were going to ask me that.

 

That is some voodoo setting that I don't play with. Apparently when I start my PC, adobe (photoshop utility) does some sort of screen calibration for my system (don't ask me how) to set my crt gamma to 2.2 (don't ask me why). A:M apparently has knowledge of this - and wants it to be 1 - so it renders it to 1 (whatever that means).

 

So there. Satisfied now? I know I'm not. I don't know what Macs are supposed to be.

 

I also have heard reported by the "cogniscenti" that the adobe utility that calibrates my crt is crapola, and that there are much better, more accurate, more standard? ways to do this. Don't ask.

 

I suspect gamma is some coefficient (exponent?) for some logarithmic curve that sets the brightness (color space?) of the monitor - and that the curve is non-linear

 

EDIT: Ah, yes - Here is the meaning of life, the universe and Gamma Correction

Edited May 30, 2011 by NancyGormezano

[robcat2075]

I find gamma explanations often confusing because depending on whether you are discussing an image making device or an image displaying device, the same number can mean opposite results in brightness and I suspect many writers on the topic don't' get that.

[bubba]

EDIT: Ah, yes - Here is the meaning of life, the universe and Gamma Correction

 

So, you say it is "mostly harmless"

 

 

God Bless Douglas Adams (wherever he may be)

[bubba]

EDIT: Ah, yes - Here is the meaning of life, the universe and Gamma Correction

 

 

If you read the article it sounds like everything should have a gamma of 2.2 - even Macs.

[robcat2075]

I recommend leaving the A:M setting at 1. That seems to get me images that look correct on everyone else's screen.

[Rodney]

Ah, I might have to chalk this up to "Newbee" error. I wasn't rendering the frame or frames out, I was just looking at it in the chor window and moving the slider back and forth.

 

We've all been there at that smack-the-mallet-to-the-head moment.

Glad to see you've resolved the problem.

 

More poet-try for the occasion?

 

20% of the bugs cause most of my frustration.

80% of the bugs do not bother me at all.

But... most of my problems aren't even related to bugs!

It's the user-error principle,

Perhaps they should make that a law?

"Thou shalt experience more user error than bugs".

[robcat2075]

General rule: If a material allows you to do more than the properties of a group would have let you do, you'll have to render it to see it.

[bubba]

Glad to see you've resolved the problem.

 

 

Ah, I haven't quite solved the problem yet as these render can attest. The first couple of times it worked but it did not look exactly right so I tried moving the light, stripping the wave generators down to one and placing it in the middle, I even played with the gamma, but only when I scrub the output in Quicktime can I barely see the waves.

 

 

leaves1.mov leaves3.mov leaves4.mov leaves5.mov

[robcat2075]

The light will need to be positioned so it would be visible as a reflection if the surface were a mirror. If the camera is 30° to the SW the light needs to be 30° to the NE or close to it.

 

2... have you animated any of those properties yet?

 

gamma is not the problem here.