Wow. Neat stuff this is. Here's a light cage pic. I spaced the lights a bit much, but it's interesting how it affected the materiials.

Attached Link: http://home.no.net/dmaurer/~dersch/Index.htm

And here's a reflection pic with panoramas. I didn't use guite the distorted image that Agent Smith used, I used images form the link above, but the same sort of mapping. This is especially cool for me, because I shoot panoramas fairly often. I wonder this though: anyone know how to convert a Quicktime Panorama (.qtvr) to a single image?

Attached Link: http://www.debevec.org/HDRShop/

Check this link here - will show you how to do it.

TM Graphics - Hi, again! I'm still thinking of the image you posted in this thread. I've since learned more about Global Illumination, but render stats you posted have been with me in my mind as comfortable milestone. Was the 19 hrs. at 450 * 600 pixels, or was there another image rendered, this thread post was reduced from? Only at the desktop standard 30 frames second, not nearing Hollywood feature films' 60/sec., and only for a 1 hr. show and not a 3 hr adventure, this animation would take 175 years to render! I'm wondering where this would go for a 15' * 30', or so , silver screen! = )

I have Bryce set for 800x600 default, and that is the size I mainly do a picture in, including the one above. Im also sure the 'Holywood' movie makers have a much faster computer(s) than I :>

You render is wonderfully photorealistic, thansk again for posting it with us! Half the reason I have many of my 3D application is for television production, the other is a hope/dream to do feature hollywood films. I'm trying to summate the cost of a real movie. I know Bryce, Poser, Carrara have it in them to do both, but as you say the hardware cost for such a project is incredible. Though I do think the 3D community will see this kind of power, on the desktop, within the next decade or so, at least for television anyway, then for movies soon after. I've also asked how large movie screens are, and what resolution they will reflect in another post. If I get the chance I'll post the math behind animating your still into a Disney! From here, just a 600x800, 3 hr. feature, of your post, would take 1,800 years to render! Har, har, har! It's a good thing technology almost doubles very year... = )

At 60 frames per. second... = )

You should look into 3DStudio Max for what you want to start with. Far better and faster renderer than Bryce. Also, with al the plug-ins, you can do almost anything.

Yeah, but the plugins when added easily over-run the already high price of the program.

Oh. I'm a really big Old School MC fan, personally. I still need to injest why they sold thier line? How much faster could Max be, literally? My guess is really exciting use of either application could incure serious render farm costs up front, quickly. ANyone know of a good farm to recommend? I plan on purchasing second and third computers for render power, I'm interested to know what additional expense a good farm could incure. There must be supercomputers in farms somewhere, if we look! = )

I tried out that global illumination thing, and it seems pretty cool(and useful). I downloaded some of the probe images from the link that AgentSmith provided, and processed them with the program they link to at the site. unfortunatly, I think I am missing something here, because my .bmp images look like the probe images: like the outside of a sphere with the image projected on it. I attached my rendered image, illustrating what I've done. you will notice the black, distorted areas on the metaballs: I believe that is due to the image I used. I'm not sure how to get the image to be rectangular, like the one AgentS provided.

if you are wondering why I posted an almost identical picture to one I jsut posted, the reason was this: I wanted to try a little experiment. I removed the sphere of 120 or so lights, and replaced it with one light, encompassing the hollowed out sphere, about 20 units larger. aside from being a bit darker(easily changed via the edit option) there are shadows and you can see a spot of light on some of the metaballs. of course, being only one light, it only took 3 minutes and 13 seconds, so if you don't need a perfect shot, and need it immediatly, this might be a way to go.

Go back through this post. Global Illumination and HDRI are two different things although both can be used together. Also the image the Smith used was a rectangular image that is why you are the Mobius ( 8 ) effect on your spheres. AB

DOH!! I hate when I ask a stupid RTFM question... although I did realize what was causing the mobius effect, I didn't know how to get the rectangle image....I got it now though. thanks for knocking some sense into me =c). BTW, this image was another experiment in global illumination. I used something like 6 or 8 lights total, but seem to have gotten a pretty decent result, without a major performance hit. I rendered using premium render settings: 4 rays per pixel, true ambience, and only took about 5 minutes.

Big_Hoovie, Shoot I'm still trying to figure out how to set up the light dome.(he-he) - TJ

bikermouse: the way I set up the light dome is I multi-rep'd the lights. first thing you want to do, though, is move the origin point to the center of you circle...um... perhaps someone can help me out with illustrating this, since I am at work, and don't have Bryce here... just make sure that when you do the multi-rep, that you do rotations, not translations. hth big_hoovie

Big_Hoovie, I was sort of half kidding. I've got it figured out in my head, but I haven't done it yet - there's just so much to learn on these forums. Thanks for the tip I'll try it with rotations. When I do something like this I generally start with 0,0,0 as the point where the first object goes. I have the mulit-rep thing down, I just seldom use it. Don't worry about that part of it - It's the HDRI I'm having trouble absorbing. Also until I upgrade to B5 I'm gonna have problems with some of it. The one light at the center is a neat trick. I wonder how different it would look using a boolean sphere rather that a metaball? Thank you, - TJ

perhaps I don't understand your question(long day), but the scene was shot inside a boolean sphere. the single light was encompassing the entire thing... unless you are referring to the subject of the image? I dunno...mebe I should try reading your post when I've got my brain cells straight. BTW, I have two thoughts on the spot of light you can see in my second attempt. one is the sunlight, the other thought is the radial light. I believe that no matter how large the light is, the light is emitted from the center of the light, producing the spot inside the booleaned sphere.

Big_Hoovie, No it was my misunderstanding, sorry. I got it now. I think I was thinking about the objects that are the subject of the image and thinking that they could just as well be booleans as metaballs? But somehow I got it tangled in my head. Also have you tried 'not hollowing' the sphere(just transparent)? bet you get some odd effects with that especially if you set refraction to 'not 100' (i.e. set refraction to 50 or 150). Anyway I'm not really thinking about this right. I have to watch startrek or something to reset my mind. as 'Enterprise' is on in 15 minutes I think I'll do that for now and come back to this tommorrow after I play with it some in my primative version of Bryce. live long and prosper, - TJ

I did this one with the same settings as the last, but the scene is not in a hollowed out sphere, but a solid sphere instead. also, I set the refraction to 153(glass), and I reduced the diffussion to about 83. render settings are the same, but it only took about 3 minutes to render

Big_Hoovie. Interesting effect. I like it. Refraction inside a sphere seems like a way to go. Well I started building a lightdome still playing around with various types of lights. These are my Spotlight ones as viewed from the outside.(no sphere present) the arch render shows artifacts where the spotlights intersect. the dome render is missing about three rows of lights at the bottom. I'll use surface lights and radials next to see if 3.1 will support the idea of a dome any better using them. still catching up, - TJ

you know, that's a neat idea. I never thought of using spotlights, rather than radial lights. I kinda like the top image, where you can actually see some of the light objects. something for me to experiment with. good luck with your experiments, big_hoovie

Refering back to post 48, would anyone be willing to share a file with this entire sphere? The link I provided is only to a 1/4 sphere. I'm sure it could be loaded into a Bryce scene 4 times over, but then alignment is an issue. Any replies will be appreciated. If anyone could be willing to just e-mail that to me, this would be super! My e-mail is cainbrogan@attbi.com. = )

I actually do not recommend a complete sphere. The render times would be GiaNormous! In all of my images I only use or a full depending on the setup. Besides your ground plane or floor would cut off the other . I dont think that the added lights would make that much of difference either.

Render times are not my concern when it comes to rendering. I'd use the sphere in open space(Off the ground, or without the ground plane,) actually. I'm going to need to test the would'nt make a differance part for myself. I've heard that one before. With twice as much light of course there is going to be a huge differance, as reflected in the render times... I really just do'nt want to align this, and am hoping someone has already done this... = )

.

YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING!!!