Folks:

I incorporated a bunch of the changes that people suggested in
this version.  For example, I attempted to make water marks
on the base of the rocks and I also was able to make the rocks
look a little better by rendering an orthographic view of the
scene from above in grayscale, etc., etc. and then using that
as the bitmap in the height_field.

I'm not sure if the focal blur looks quite right.  There is still
something unsatisfying about the scene.  Maybe it's just a little
boring.

Aaron

Aaron Gillies
New York City
x3rxes[^]yahoo.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cove_02.JPG' (49 KB)

Preview of image 'cove_02.JPG'

Aaron Gillies wrote:

> Folks:
> 
> I incorporated a bunch of the changes that people suggested in
> this version.  For example, I attempted to make water marks
> on the base of the rocks and I also was able to make the rocks
> look a little better by rendering an orthographic view of the
> scene from above in grayscale, etc., etc. and then using that
> as the bitmap in the height_field.
> 
> I'm not sure if the focal blur looks quite right.  There is still
> something unsatisfying about the scene.  Maybe it's just a little
> boring.

Well given you have waves the water's edge should be wet and the rock 
glossy at that point. The rest of the rocks are cleaner than is natural. 
One would expect bits of sea/water weed and other signs of aquatic life. 
There should be weathering and lichen growth on the rocks with the 
type/color changing according to the height on the rocks etc.

Have a look at the rocks in some of the pics here (page 2 is better)
http://3-e.net

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <no### [at] spamcom> wrote in news:3d8cdca6$1@news.povray.org

> I'm not sure if the focal blur looks quite right.  There is still
> something unsatisfying about the scene.  Maybe it's just a little
> boring.

I don't like blur either, 'sharp' water will probably look more nicely.


-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

Aaron Gillies wrote:
> Folks:
> 
> I incorporated a bunch of the changes that people suggested in
> this version.  For example, I attempted to make water marks
> on the base of the rocks and I also was able to make the rocks
> look a little better by rendering an orthographic view of the
> scene from above in grayscale, etc., etc. and then using that
> as the bitmap in the height_field.
> 
> I'm not sure if the focal blur looks quite right.  There is still
> something unsatisfying about the scene.  Maybe it's just a little
> boring.

Looks better, but the focal blur IS rather unconvincing.

You might consider making a better sky and turning on radiosity; for a 
scene like this, very low quality settings will suffice, although lower 
error_bound will help pick out detail in the rock surface better. Set 
the radiosity brightness to .2 or so.

Hmm, what else.. a sense of scale is lacking here; since these rocks are 
presumably near an island or shoreline, I would expect to see something 
growing in dirt that had blown onto the rock, or a bird's nest (or at 
least a bird), or something of that sort.

Maybe add or adjust a small, rough normal on the rock surface so it gets 
stronger as you go up? I don't live near any large bodies of water with 
rocks sticking out of them, but I would expect there to be more erosion 
closer to the water.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <no### [at] spamcom> wrote :
>
>   There is still
> something unsatisfying about the scene.

    It looks small. Like the "Thunderbirds" sets. Like the water is out of
scale with the rocks.

Post a reply to this message

3d8cdca6$1@news.povray.org...
> Folks:
>
> I incorporated a bunch of the changes that people suggested in
> this version.  For example, I attempted to make water marks
> on the base of the rocks and I also was able to make the rocks
> look a little better by rendering an orthographic view of the
> scene from above in grayscale, etc., etc. and then using that
> as the bitmap in the height_field.

It's better that way
>
> I'm not sure if the focal blur looks quite right.  There is still
> something unsatisfying about the scene.  Maybe it's just a little
> boring.
>
With that kind of sunny outdoor scene, depth of field should be big (high
diaphragm value and focus set to infinite) so nearly no blur at all.
You only get focal blur on close up focus and/or low light conditions.
Here I feel a wrong scale as if the closest rocks were at 1 meter or less.

Your sky has no gradient as real sky has.
I'd set a lower cam position because with this one I'd expect a background
landscape.
Marc

Post a reply to this message

One word: Wow!  ;o)  This is definitely an improvement! Surely not boring,
but I agree the focal blur isn't quite right.. I have a camera myself and
focal blur is only visible on close-up photos. Landscapes don't have it.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

Hi Aaron,

your rocks are much better! But I can't see how large they are:

Are they small rocks whereon you can sit with feet in the water?
   Then they should be separate stones, not monolithic.

Or are they 2 m high (I think that would match the size of the
ripples on the water)?
   Then the camera should be on a small boat, of whitch I would
   like to see a little bit.

Or are they house-sized?
   The boat should be larger.

Or mountains, seen from an aeroplane?
   Then you should have waves of more scales: large, long parallel
   waves (perhaps add a scale <1, 1, 10> to your waves), small
   waves and tiny ripples. And vegetation on the mountains.

Or the Himalayas at the beach, seen from space?
   Then I expect snow, curved horizon, dark blue sky.

Perhaps your stones are too clean: no loose pieces of stone, no
vegetation, no snow, no path, no waterfall, no animals, no glaciers,
no vulcano eruption (under water?), no lava (vaporizing the water?).
I would like to see some elements that give me an indication of
scale.

Your focal blur is much too strong: if objects in a distance of 20 m
are sharp, then those at infinity also -- remember fixfocus-cameras.

The waterline is better than before, but looks somehow blurred -- I
can't recognize any details. Perhaps you add some splash, foam,
wetting of the rocks near the waterline, reflected waves?

The suggestion in this thread to add a nest seems promising to me
(if it's not a single-pixel-nest due to scale), but remember: birds
leave traces ... (guano mountains??) !

Ah, and the background: you surely plan to fill in a gradient from
blue to light blue, clouds, birds, grey-blue mountains far away,
more landscape behind (at least part of a tree)?
Or: black sky with stars, Saturn with its rings and a handfull of
its moons, galactic nebulae, UFOs splashing into the water?
Or: ...
... topic is 'spectacular landscapes'? Eeeh, ahem, well, ...
Or: clip away the sky -- only 'water at the rocks'?

Awaiting the next version

   Sputnik


e-mail: frATcomputermuseumDOTfh-kielDOTde
-------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for all of the responses folks!

I see that I still have quite a ways to go on this one.

I concur on the scale issue.  I think that that problem is
that, while I have been fiddling with the image, I haven't
really decided what the scale is myself.  Sometimes, it
seems to me that that the landmass is mountains; other times,
rocks ...  You get the picture.

Anyway, I guess I'll open up the scene file again this
evening and see if I can make it a bit better ...

Aaron

Aaron Gillies
New York City
x3rxes[%]yahoo.com

Post a reply to this message