Topic awaiting preservation: Maybe useful. (Page 1 of 1)

I really hope someone finds this useful...
This is done with 3D Studio:

http://royal.eldars.nss.ee/art/pildid/glass2.png 1024x768 (edit: fixed the link)
In the upper row are full glass spheres.
The first one is right above this flowery surface, second one is 1/4 way in the surface and 3. sphere is half way in the surface.
In the lower row are hemispheres (half a sphere).
First one is almost right above the surface, second one is a bit further and third one is pretty far from surface.
Flat side of these hemispheres are turned towards the surface.

I made this just to demonstrate the almost actual displacement of perfectly transparent glass balls.
Everyone has to figure out the PS way themselves and please don't mind my lousy lightning.
Maybe someone can get a tip from here for his/her displacement filter.
I hope it helps somebody and please don't redirect me to some 3D topic or forum becouse this was meant for photoshoppers



[This message has been edited by Arthurio (edited 07-16-2003).]

quote:

---

Everyone has to figure out the PS way themselves...
...this was meant for photoshoppers

---

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 07-16-2003).]

It means 3D studio users wouldn't have any use of it anyway.

huh??? so ya created 3 complete glass balls and 3 half glass balls put them over a backgfround rendered it, put it here in the PS forum to show how refraction works??? light isnt DISPLACED by glass its either REFLECTED OR REFRACTED

hmmmm.....

and ya point is????

depending on how far you have each glass object will cause different magnifications or other distortions as the light passes through it, also various glasses have different refractives index's..

so i am still at a loss as to what this does, for PS users or 3D studio users....



[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 07-16-2003).]

I guess he was just trying to help.
Remember everyone who comes here asking "How do i do glass spheres in PS?" and you guys just redirect them to google searches or tell them to look really close to glass sphere's and try to recreate in PS what they see...
So he just tried to offer some glass speheres to people that can't find pics of them on google and don't have any at home either.
Or that's what I've got from it...As for the displace part, i dunno, i'm not the expert in PS But he might have made a mistake
Shoot him

crip



[This message has been edited by crip (edited 07-17-2003).]

Shoot him ??? Have my doubts about that. Most likely he has to share his ration of the famoused pills for the rest of his life in here.

;-)

While it's always good to share, and the intent here is obviously to be helpful - and that's always appreciated - I think this kind of defeats its own purpose.

As reference material, it is not quite up to par on a realistic level. What 3D apps do to simulate a realistic globe and what really happens with a real globe tend to be two different things.

As a demonstration, it doesn't do much for photoshop users looking to make such effects, as it wasn't made in Photoshop.

Now, if you were to say...create the same thing in Photoshop, and rattle off a few tips as to how you did it, I'm quite sure a few of the newbies who have been asking about such things would be appreciative.... (and it would be a good exercise for yourself)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-17-2003).]

I agree and disagree with DL.

Agree:
If you want real world refraction (or reflection), then you have to have a full scene. A photo on a plane just doesn't cut it. As you move around in 3d, things change. There is depth in 3d that isn't in a 2d photo.

Disagree:
However, you can't exactly have a full blown 3d environment in PhotoShop to play with. In PS, you start with something 2d to refract (or reflect). In this respect, a photo on a plane is a valid study.

Personally, I've used a 3d prog to study a myriad of things that I want to do in PS. I don't always have something really real to study, so I'll mock it in a 3d prog. What does volume light look like when it's streaming in from a window? What does a face look like with a light under the chin? If light hits a glass pitcher, what does the shadow look like (caustics)? Even if it's quick-n-dirty, it does help me in a lot of regards.

I, too, would like to see Arthurio take it to the next level. Some observations were made, but how to apply it to making something in PS?

Yes, 3D apps can certainly help provide reference for various situations. This particluar piece doesn't cut IMO though, for various reasons. I honestly don't get the impression from any of those objects that they are glass spheres. I get the impression that someone was perhaps trying to make spher-ish transparent shapes that end up looking somewhat like lenses.

Again - the initial post was intended to be helpful, and that is a good thing, and deserves credit.

.

Regarding the ''full blown 3D environment in photoshop" -

No, you can't have that - but you don't *need* to have that. Part of why I stress getting real life refernce for such things is because you will see things that you would not have thought of.

You also have to remember that Photohop is capable fo doing more than running filters. You don't need a "full blown 3D environemt" in order to create the imagery that would exist in the real world. You can do more than simply displace a photograph to get reflections on your objects. You can, for starters, have more than one image that you use to distort on your sphere, you can get in there by hand and paint the objects as they would appear - without running filters. But you wouldn't know those things existed to be put in place without real world references

You're thinking to "programmatically"



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 07-17-2003).]

You can use a 3d prog in place of real life - if you do it right. I'm saying that is where Arthurio is flawed. To do a proper study with a 3d program, a few more things have to be done (okay, a lot more things have to be done). But I'm also saying that it's okay because of the 2d nature of PS... sort of. (The word "fakery" comes to mind.)

Consider this render:
refract1.jpg
Pretty straight-forward 2d environment.

Now toss a sphere in there with IOR of 1.5:
refract2.jpg
Looks a lot different than what one might expect. The refraction of two objects have really caught my eye: the red toolbox and the painting above the TV. Notice their 2d distance from the sphere, and where/how much they appear in the sphere. The difference between the 2 objects is because of their 3d distance from the sphere.

I now know a little more about doing refraction not because of real life, but because I did a proper real life simulation.

Again, agree and disagree.

Right.

My main point, however, is that the '2D nature of photoshop' is irrelevant, since you can account for any eventuality if you know that you *should* be accounting for for them.

You don't have to run a displace or a shperize to get a proper looking reflective sphere - they are simply tools to help. You can alter what shows up where if you know well enough, you can invent things that aren't in you 'reflection map' if you use one, you can do whatever you want - the key is knowing.

No disagreement on a 3D app being able to help. But any way you cut it, if you can get *real* examples, you're better off. Even the best 3D app is going to be limited as to how closely it can mimic reality.