Hello everyone!

I haven't posted much lately (like an image or an animation), but in
case
you guys want to know what I am up to:
On my webpage I've created a section entitled "Major WIP". Right now,
you may find 3 images concerned with the ongoing IRTC-Stills contest
"Worlds within Worlds", and the latest addition shows something like
a near-final composition (background and foreground, focus etc). I know,

there is a lot missing (windows, some objects, a little tweaking here
and there),
but that's why people call these things WIP... ;)

So, if you'd have a look and reply here with some comments, suggestions,

or whatever you have in store, I'd welcome it!

(By the way: the image is supposed to be pure POV-Ray work, but for the
moon I just had to use an imagemap... is there an internal POV-Function
entitled "The real moon's surface"? - JK)

Tim
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message

This keep getting better and better. The landscape still needs some texture
work, but the rest of the scene looks good and correct in scale.

 -Shay

Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C5D8DD2.FE0197FD@gmx.de...
 Hello everyone!

Post a reply to this message

Shay schrieb:

> This keep getting better and better. The landscape still needs some texture
> work, but the rest of the scene looks good and correct in scale.
>

So what exactly do you mean with texture-work? I'm quiet satisfied,
but I'm always open for suggestions that lead to enhancements!

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message

The landscape detail in image one is not apparent in the latest image.
Perhaps increasing the contrast would bring out more of the detail. Also, I
liked the clouds in image one.

The water looks a just a little artificial to me as well. Are you using
light-fading?

Of course all of this is just my opinion.

 -Shay




Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C5EEE6C.179481D8@gmx.de...
>
> So what exactly do you mean with texture-work? I'm quiet satisfied,
> but I'm always open for suggestions that lead to enhancements!

Post a reply to this message

> The landscape detail in image one is not apparent in the latest image.
> Perhaps increasing the contrast would bring out more of the detail. Also, I
> liked the clouds in image one.
>

Well, in the latest image, the overall detail of the heightfield is lowered
(instead of using 400x400 pixels, it uses 40x40), thus there is not
much to be seen of the slope-maps. What about the colors, I thought
you meant them?
And, the latest image is just a rough compostion, the clouds use lots of
tracing time (50 discs..., all throwing shadows... refraction...reflection....)

>
> The water looks a just a little artificial to me as well. Are you using
> light-fading?
>

Which water? The "real" ocean, or the tiny one? On the real one, I don't
use light-fading, and there is also no specular or phong highlighting in use,
but only exponential and variable reflection.
The tiny ocean is lit by a fading lightsource, but perhaps the color isn't
fitting?

>
> Of course all of this is just my opinion.
>

I hope so, that's what I asked for! ;)


--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C5EFB9E.AFBB8630@gmx.de...

> Well, in the latest image, the overall detail of the heightfield is
lowered
> (instead of using 400x400 pixels, it uses 40x40)>

Then ignore everything I said about the landscape!!
I think if you used fade_power and fade_distance in your water material (in
the bowl) it might appear less solid.
I'm no expert on this, but i would suggest something like:

pigment { rgb <[your rgb]> transmit .95 }
fade_distance [depth of your water/3]
fade_power 2

Just a suggestion for the bowl. The ocean is very convinceing.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

>
> Then ignore everything I said about the landscape!!
>

Ok. ;)

> I think if you used fade_power and fade_distance in your water material (in
> the bowl) it might appear less solid.
> I'm no expert on this, but i would suggest something like:
>
> pigment { rgb <[your rgb]> transmit .95 }
> fade_distance [depth of your water/3]
> fade_power 2
>
> Just a suggestion for the bowl. The ocean is very convinceing.
>

I'll try. Thanks for the last positive comment!

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html

Post a reply to this message