Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> Here's a little pic I made.
> [...]

Neat.

The small bush in the foreground looks a bit like a small scale version of
the tree.  

Are all plants made with xfrog?  

> - low quality radiosity (runs quite fast in fact, 8 hours at 1200*1600 on my
> P733).

i suppose this is a scaled version then?  If not i wonder what aa settings
you used, the more distant trees look nicely smoothed.

Higher quality radiosity settings would probably improve the sense of
depth between the plants.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 05 May. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 15 May 2002 19:34:32 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>The image was rendered with assumed_gamma = 1. The gamma and contrast were
>adjusted by post-processing. It could use more contrast actually. I couldn't
>get rid of that painterly look but it's not so bad after all.

Since you opened the topic of needing contrast, and trying to lose the
"painterly effect", I toyed with your image in Photoshop LE, for a
little while, trying to make it more photographic looking.

In my opinion, the rusty vehicle texture needs more color saturation.
This was one of the best tweaks I found for this image. Perhaps there
is too much radiosity, or too high of an ambient level specified in
the rust texture? I also selectively darkened the shadow tones on the
right side of the vehicle, without also darkening the highlights or
midtones.

The foreground has a subtle haze clouding it. I manipulated the darker
tones of the foreground to he slightly darker. This got rid of a lot
of the hazey look. I left the haze in the background, because it seems
appropriate there. 

If there really is some sort of haze/fog/media/atmosphere type of
effect coded into the scene, it need to only be applied to the
background area beyond the tree. If there are no atmospheric effects
used in the scene file, then perhaps the ambient level/ radiosity
level needs to be reduced in the foreground? Perhaps your textures and
colors  need to be tweaked for a bit more color saturation in the
foreground?

All those haze comments are assuming that the scene was meant to have
a warm, late-afternoon sunlight effect, with somewhat warmer and
bolder colors and contrast.

I increased the color saturation of the blue and cyan tones in the
sky. Either try more saturated colors in your sky description, or
perhaps use a less hazey sky?

I also darkened the shadow areas of the tree leaves, increased the
color saturation of the green leaves, and brightened the highlights of
the green leaves.

This was just done in a few minutes in Photoshop LE, and is not
intended to be my best effort, but a simple exploration of what might
be tweaked. 

I hope you appreciate the comments, and I hope you post more of your
excellent images to the newsgroup in the near future. I've been
missing your contributions here.

Later,
Glen Berry


Later,
Glen

7no### [at] ezwvcom     (Remove the numeral "7")

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Not_4_Sale.jpg' (121 KB)

Preview of image 'Not_4_Sale.jpg'

On Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:40 -0500, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg>
wrote:

>The only thing I think it needs is focal_blur. Other than that, superb job
>(as usual), Gilles.
>

I've attached two more quick Photoshop variations. The first one is
Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg:

This image simulates focal blur by selectively applying gaussian blur
to the areas behind the tree. I  used an amount of "1" for the
gaussian blur. The effect is somewhat subtle. Higher amounts didn't
look like focal blur, but simply a poorly-focused image.

The second image is Not_4_Sale_Fog.jpg:

This is a simulation of fog, by applying a huge amount of gaussian
blur to the background areas behind the tree. I selected those areas
with Photoshop's lasso tool, and feathered the selection by 45 pixels.
The gaussian blur amount was set to "48", which is a LOT of blur.

These are just quick explorations what might be done, either within
POV-Ray itself, or in a post-process. I think the results are
interesting. 

Oh, I should mention that Gilles himself thought it would be good to
post some of my comments here, as I had earlier sent him only private
emails. He thought that some of the information might be useful to the
rest of the newsgroup.



Later,
Glen

7no### [at] ezwvcom     (Remove the numeral "7")

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Not_4_Sale.jpg' (1 KB) Download 'Not_4_Sale_fog.jpg' (102 KB) Download 'Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg' (110 KB)

Preview of image 'Not_4_Sale_fog.jpg'

Preview of image 'Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg'

Now that is one masterpiece!! Your amount of plants are higher than I would
dare, though. You mean, you're using 17000 unique meshes? That takes a lot
of memory. I would have sticked to 20, perhaps 30 different meshes and
reused them... Even in my wildest fantasy.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

3ce2c948$1@news.povray.org...
> Now that is one masterpiece!! Your amount of plants are higher than I
would
> dare, though. You mean, you're using 17000 unique meshes? That takes a lot
> of memory. I would have sticked to 20, perhaps 30 different meshes and
> reused them... Even in my wildest fantasy.

In mine too :-) I wonder when I could have produced 17000 different meshes,
and where I could have stored them... No, it's just 10 or so different
meshes replicated thousands of times.

G.


--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

3CE2C54A.95E9A567@gmx.de...

> The small bush in the foreground looks a bit like a small scale version of
> the tree.
Hmm, I guess I'm not proficient yet with xfrog.
>
> Are all plants made with xfrog?

Yes. The tree and the dandelion were ready-made models (I just changed the
leaves on the trees). The others were created from scratch.

> i suppose this is a scaled version then?  If not i wonder what aa settings
> you used, the more distant trees look nicely smoothed.

It's a scaled version of a 1200*1600, with a slight "accentuation"
filtering. I remember seeing recently interesting tips about aa somewhere in
this ng but I couldn't find them.

> Higher quality radiosity settings would probably improve the sense of
> depth between the plants.
Possibly. The truth is that I'm already in the 400 Mb range of RAM use and
that higher rad settings would certainly cause problems.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Wow great picture as always! One thing, I'm sure this is a result of scaling
down the image from 1200*1600 but incase it isn't, your tree has a number of
floating leaves, that is leaves that don't seem to be atached to anything,
though I'm sure in the full sized image they are just attached to very small
twigs.

Post a reply to this message

WOW !
Impressive !!!




--
Luis


****************************************************
Lightning Generator
http://www.lightning-generator.fr.st
http://LG666.ifrance.com

http://www.pov-wip.fr.st

http://www.pov-monde.org
Chan IRC sur eu.undernet.org : #povray-fr
****************************************************

3ce29c12@news.povray.org...
> Here's a little pic I made.
> - Terragen sky. Actually, it's a terragen-made panorama linked to the sun
> position.
> - isosurface terrain (ridged multifractal)
> - xfrog plants : for those who don't know it, xfrog can be described as
> Poser for plants, with animation and modelling abilities.
> (http://www.xfrog.com, fully-functional 30-day trial version available).
> Some of the plants (the tree, the dandelion) are derived from the models
> bundled with the software and I made others (imaginary ones...). Norbert
> Kern's IRTC winner "warm up" used a lot of xfrog trees. Here there are
> around 17000 plants.
> - 2cv car by De Espona, with some parts remodelled in Rhino. Rust texture
> borrowed from HE Day.
> - low quality radiosity (runs quite fast in fact, 8 hours at 1200*1600 on
my
> P733).
> The image was rendered with assumed_gamma = 1. The gamma and contrast were
> adjusted by post-processing. It could use more contrast actually. I
couldn't
> get rid of that painterly look but it's not so bad after all.
>
> G.
> --
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Hmmm... err... ahhh! (looking at the "little pic" from top to bottom).

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message