 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
Well, I cancelled my last post as this new (and hopefully improved) version
has just finished so thought I'd post this better version.
Just trying out sub-surface scattering with an isosurface to try and get a
nice hedgerow look. I'm quite happy with it so far, except the base where it
becomes rather pale, not sure how to solve that, maybe a higher density?
The grass is from Gilles but it needs a bit of work, the rest of the scene
is also being worked on. It's just about the hedge really, just thought I'd
try and get some views.
Comments and criticisms more than welcome (and any hints too).
Kev
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'hdgtest.jpg' (50 KB)
Preview of image 'hdgtest.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Personally I'd say up the patterns smaller scale size for a larger leaf. If
you know what I mean. Just seems to me that the grass and hedge could be
switched. I'm also not seeing 3D-like depth and I'm not sure why, unless
it's a lack of very dark shadow spaces contrasting with lighter greenery.
Maybe just that size thing though, judging by the roadside curb I guess.
Can you get the underside transparent and still leave the trunks? Maybe
something to let a shadow fall across it would help to see it in a better
way but I suppose you have whatever plans already in mind.
--
text{ttf"arial","bob h",.1,0pigment{rgb 9}translate<-1,-.2,3>}
"Kevin Ellis" <kev### [at] tiscali couk> wrote in message
news:3c0ff9ad@news.povray.org...
>
> Just trying out sub-surface scattering with an isosurface to try and get a
> nice hedgerow look. I'm quite happy with it so far, except the base where
it
> becomes rather pale, not sure how to solve that, maybe a higher density?
>
> The grass is from Gilles but it needs a bit of work, the rest of the scene
> is also being worked on. It's just about the hedge really, just thought
I'd
> try and get some views.
>
> Comments and criticisms more than welcome (and any hints too).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Kevin Ellis
Subject: Re: Iso+Subsurf Scattering Test 2 (50kb bu)
Date: 7 Dec 2001 02:37:47
Message: <3c1071cb@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"bob h" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:3c106ace@news.povray.org...
>I'm also not seeing 3D-like depth and I'm not sure why, unless
> it's a lack of very dark shadow spaces contrasting with lighter greenery.
Err, that's because I forgot to remove no_shadow from the hedge object after
playing around with it, oops. Thanks for reminding me.
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Iso+Subsurf Scattering Test 2 (50kb bu)
Date: 8 Dec 2001 08:54:43
Message: <3C121BA2.C9A8D9B4@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks quite good, but i would really like to see a closer look, at this
size it's really difficult to judge the details.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Kevin Ellis
Subject: Re: Iso+Subsurf Scattering Test 2 (50kb bu)
Date: 8 Dec 2001 11:19:12
Message: <3c123d80@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C121BA2.C9A8D9B4@gmx.de...
> It looks quite good, but i would really like to see a closer look, at this
> size it's really difficult to judge the details.
Thanks. Well the idea was that it wouldn't be seen too close up as I don't
think the method involved would stand up to close scrutiny. I'm still
playing with the parameters and it's looking a lot better, especially now
that I removed the no_shadow (thanks Bob), and I've remembered to turn AA
on, that's something that was missing from this post. A replacement should
be posted in the next day or so.
Kev
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
