Go to bottom

light ray effect

category: code [glöplog]
actually zilog (by mrock/sunflower) has a nice one too, but that looks more like alphablended extrusion of geometry to me than a blur. still, looks goooood.
added on the 2010-03-03 03:46:01 by superplek superplek
So this thread has no referenced both liveevil and zilog. They must be my favorite sw-rendered demos, precisely because they look so nice and organic and anti-aliased.

I think I soiled myself.
added on the 2010-03-03 10:54:17 by sagacity sagacity

added on the 2010-03-03 10:54:29 by sagacity sagacity
there was also a software rendered demo by a group called uknox or something which i think featured subpixel radial blur and some other subpixcel blur stuff. it also featured some typography, some rotating 3d objects, a voxel-twister of some sort etc..
added on the 2010-03-03 16:02:16 by rudi rudi
sorry my bad. it was a demo by Wipe. http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=28
added on the 2010-03-03 16:08:36 by rudi rudi
it's my first cdc!
rydi: Ukonx also did that in "My world" - http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=5302
added on the 2010-03-03 19:34:39 by gloom gloom
"Lightrays" in MHC always amazed me...!


added on the 2010-03-04 01:45:28 by bdk bdk
ooh yes bdk i've always loved that in moralhardcandy!
added on the 2010-03-04 08:55:52 by blackpawn blackpawn
bdk: Aren't they just billboarded, blendet sprites - and lots of them?
added on the 2010-03-04 09:19:55 by gloom gloom
The rule is simple: *blur* the image before doing the radial blur/smear. It won't look good otherwise.
added on the 2010-03-04 10:12:35 by Navis Navis
navis: yes it will if you code the blur properly.
added on the 2010-03-04 10:19:16 by ryg ryg
how to code the blur properly?
Navis is on to something - I always disliked those sharp-edge radial-blurs on text and such - the edges just don't look good.
added on the 2010-03-04 11:18:41 by gloom gloom
I'd say just blur everything slightly, period ;)

With these fancy 1080p HD screens and whatnot, the resolution isn't as much a problem (IMO), everything tends to look way too sharp instead.

Oh, and mix in some noise as well. Just look at the awesomeness in the slight noise in Heavy Rain!
added on the 2010-03-04 11:24:07 by kusma kusma
A slight noise layer is always good with CG. It makes it look much more natural, even if the noise level is so low it's not noticeable :)
added on the 2010-03-04 11:38:50 by psonice psonice
I think it's because we're so used to film, which is a bit noisy by nature.
added on the 2010-03-04 11:50:48 by kusma kusma
I guess light itself is noisy by nature. Even digital cameras are never free of noise. In fact noise is a good thing.. there's all kinds of information buried in the noise just waiting to be extracted :)
added on the 2010-03-04 12:18:45 by psonice psonice
how to code the blur properly?

as mentioned on the previous page, this thread contains all you need to know :)
added on the 2010-03-04 12:19:26 by ryg ryg
cool thx
I did some testing also but faced a few problems;

BB Image

If I'm using formula ryg mentioned to calculate the reference point for blur (center+(pos-center)*scalar), there are visible copies of the image as seen in this picture (first 'k'). If scalar is small enough that is. And with scalar close to 1.0 they disappear but at the same time bright circle at blur center grows also rapidly and blur effect vanishes almost entirely.
added on the 2010-03-04 16:01:28 by harism harism
what are your zoom factors (for all the taps), and how many passes do you do?

but really, it's all in the thread quoted above. just read it.
added on the 2010-03-04 17:00:21 by ryg ryg
added on the 2010-03-04 17:05:03 by hornet hornet
I'm using a zoom factor around 0.98, one pass. And I read that other thread already but wasn't able to understand your description there properly. Got to re-read it one day.
added on the 2010-03-04 18:31:18 by harism harism


Go to top