 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jellby" <jel### [at] M-yahoo com> wrote in message
news:401d8698@news.povray.org...
>
> Copper and iron salts can be green too
> (<http://www.wqa.org/sitelogic.cfm?ID=346>).
Glad you showed that. I wasn't considering inorganic colorations.
I also think of the bacteria at Yellowstone National Park, in the hotsprings
there. Colorful stuff and not "plantlife" either. I keep using that word too
generally and used it again to mean any kind of microorganism.
Here's an article concerning Jupiter's moon Europa, about possibility of
bacteria and the colors on it's surface:
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=53
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[following the nice discussion about signs of life...]
Actually, the coloring of the water was the major problem.
I'm not sure if an ocean on Mars would be so blue; at least
there is no blue sky which could be reflected.
And then I had to make it much darker than I thought because
if I leave the water more transparent it no longer looks like
liquid water at all but like dark dry sediments. Or maybe, this
perception varies quite a lot between different people.
And yes, I decided to make the water (absorption) a bit greenish
because it turned out that I liked it...
But now, I will be telling people it's some anorganic salts ;)
(Thanks Jellby)
BTW, there is now an updated version on my homepage. I removed
some spurious water in the background by re-adjusting the level.
Especially have a look at the crater right back!
http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~wwieser/render/img/mars/3craters-ese-2-1200.jpg
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks better.
There are some peculiar squiggles running from lower right toward the
middle, and comparing this new render to the other I see it was also visible
there. Just much clearer to see now. Perhaps a isosurface with too low a
max_gradient?
Bob H.
"Wolfgang Wieser" <wwi### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:401ea555@news.povray.org...
---snip---
>
http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~wwieser/render/img/mars/3craters-ese-2-1200.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Wolfgang Wieser schrieb:
I'm not sure if an ocean on Mars would be so blue; at least
there is no blue sky which could be reflected.
I don't think so... as long Mars was able to maintain liquid water on its surface, the
atmosphere must have been much denser
then today, and so the sky also was coloured up to the zenith, unlike nowadays. And
even
today sometimes, depending on
weather and dust saturation of the air, the reddish/yellowish horizon seam turns
bluish -
so also the early Martian oceans
would probably have been deep blue like Earth's oceans as seen from orbit
BTW, there is now an updated version on my homepage. I removed
some spurious water in the background by re-adjusting the level.
Especially have a look at the crater right back!
Did you use 8 or 16bit resolution for the heightfield? I assume that you used
Christoph's
IC_HF_Sphere function to wrap it
around the sphere... perhaps in the future, we might be able to reduce rendering time
by
just rendering those portions (tiles)
of the heightfield which would be actually visible in the image; currently, I try to
modify IC_HF_Sphere to render only
sections of a spherical heightfield...
See you in Khyberspace - http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/khyberspace/index-e.html
Afghanistan Chronicle: http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/index-e.htm
Home-made electronic music: http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/music/
Yadgar ((:->
Now playing: Upstairs in my House (Men at Work)
--
Pashto 2.0, a protocol language for the Advanced Fractal Geometric Heightfield and
Navigation Implementation-Sensitive
Texture Analysis Network
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BTW, there is now an updated version on my homepage. I removed
> some spurious water in the background by re-adjusting the level.
> Especially have a look at the crater right back!
>
> Did you use 8 or 16bit resolution for the heightfield?
>
16 bit. But no height field.
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hughes, B. wrote:
> There are some peculiar squiggles running from lower right toward the
> middle, and comparing this new render to the other I see it was also
> visible there. Just much clearer to see now. Perhaps a isosurface with too
> low a max_gradient?
>
I see what you mean.
There are more spots of this sort.
They are not related to the water surface because they are also
visible on the rendering without water.
I'm not sure what it is but I doubt it is due to max_gradient (which
was set too high and hence the reason for the render to take soo long).
I'll see if changing accuracy/gradient will help.
OTOH, it does not really hurt, IMO.
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Wolfgang Wieser schrieb:
16 bit. But no height field.
So it must be a mesh - how long did it take to parse?
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Now playing: Fashion Fever (Level 42)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
