Well, the AA settings are much higher (+a0.2 +am2),
still using Radiosity_OutdoorLQ but with error_bound 0.3.

Other changes:
Pigment function to distribute the leaf colours in the
overhang, more variety of leaf colours.
Better textures for the soil on the edge of the far bank.
Re-worked the lake water surface completely.
Took a chip out of the leg of the lantern.
Modified the "moss" on the rock.

There's still something not quite right about the darkest
shadows on the lantern, could it be I need to up the
recursion_limit from 1 to 2?

Anyway I hope you think it's a significant enough
improvement to merit a re-post.
-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'kotoji.jpg' (118 KB)

Preview of image 'kotoji.jpg'

This is turning into a great image! Two points that I can think of...

  1. The water is too smooth.

  2. Some of the leaves on the tree would reflect pure white. (Ouch).
Most of the leaves would have colours fading from dark to light
<yourcolour>.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>  This is turning into a great image! Two points that I can think of...
> 
>   1. The water is too smooth.
> 
>   2. Some of the leaves on the tree would reflect pure white. (Ouch).
> Most of the leaves would have colours fading from dark to light
> <yourcolour>.
> 
>    ~Steve~

Thanks, I think I need to do some more experiments on the correct
scale for the surface normal on the water.
Not sure about the leaves reflecting, I'm trying for translucency,
but yes, maybe overplayed.
The leaves are image/normal maps so I don't have direct control,
though I could play with the underlying images I guess.
-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Hails" <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote in message
news:407468e4@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> >  This is turning into a great image! Two points that I can think
of...
> >
> >   1. The water is too smooth.
> >
> >   2. Some of the leaves on the tree would reflect pure white.
(Ouch).
> > Most of the leaves would have colours fading from dark to light
> > <yourcolour>.
> >
> >    ~Steve~
>
> Thanks, I think I need to do some more experiments on the correct
> scale for the surface normal on the water.
> Not sure about the leaves reflecting, I'm trying for translucency,
> but yes, maybe overplayed.
> The leaves are image/normal maps so I don't have direct control,
> though I could play with the underlying images I guess.

   I'm hesitant to say this, but try minusing some of your ambients on
the leaves then. I think this could lead to a good compromise.

   ~Steve~


> -- 
> Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:


> 
>    I'm hesitant to say this, but try minusing some of your ambients on
> the leaves then. I think this could lead to a good compromise.

hmm, yes you're probably right, I've currently got

#local Fin_OHLeaf = finish {
    ambient 0.4
    diffuse 1.0
}

way too high for realism, but I don't want them to end up looking
dark, the images are pngs with some transparency, maybe I can
increase that to compensate.

>    ~Steve~
> 
> 
>> --
>> Bill Hails

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Hails" <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote in message
news:4074749e@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>
> >
> >    I'm hesitant to say this, but try minusing some of your
ambients on
> > the leaves then. I think this could lead to a good compromise.
>
> hmm, yes you're probably right, I've currently got
>
> #local Fin_OHLeaf = finish {
>     ambient 0.4
>     diffuse 1.0
> }
>
> way too high for realism,

  How is this?

but I don't want them to end up looking
> dark,

  Well, my original thought was, "If you stand under a tree in these
circumstances, and look up, then you will see many variations in
colour".

    I would experiment further with this image, and I really want to
see the final... :)


the images are pngs with some transparency, maybe I can
> increase that to compensate.

   Somebody more technical than I can answer this one...  ;)

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

Very nice! I must say I rather like the way the water looks in the
distance - you can get that kind of blurred effect in longer exposure
photographs.

Alternatively, a texture a bit like
http://www.gris.uni-tuebingen.de/~bartz/Photos/usa/rainier.jpg would work. I
like the forground of this one where you can actually see the ripples, but
both in that photo and (in my experience) in pov-ray, you can start getting
odd pixels shining up bright at long distances, where the scale of the
detail is much smaller than the pixel resolution. A lot of antialiasing
might fix this though. BTW, google image search for "lake reflection" brings
up a lot of nice photos of how this kind of thing looks for lake surfaces of
various roughnesses.

I have a few other comments - it would be nice if the water was a bit
higher, so that the small plant by the water line in the foreground was
reflected more clearly. The trees in the background are also rather large,
it seems to me. Perhaps the top of the trees could be visable in the lake,
and some sky and scenery behind (a mountain?).

Very impressive overall though.

-Chris

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>   Well, my original thought was, "If you stand under a tree in these
> circumstances, and look up, then you will see many variations in
> colour".

Yes, of course, you're right. Like I said in my first post of this a
week or so ago "I'm loosing objectivity". Thanks for your perceptive
comments.

>     I would experiment further with this image, and I really want to
> see the final... :)
> 

Unfortunately I have to put it away for a while, other demands on my
(play)time, hopefully in a week or so I can get back to it.

Thanks again!

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Hails" <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote in message
news:40747c79@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> >   Well, my original thought was, "If you stand under a tree in
these
> > circumstances, and look up, then you will see many variations in
> > colour".
>
> Yes, of course, you're right. Like I said in my first post of this a
> week or so ago "I'm loosing objectivity".

 I'm sorry, for some reason, I missed that.


Thanks for your perceptive
> comments.

   I'm no expert, but I like to hope that I help in some way.


>
> >     I would experiment further with this image, and I really want
to
> > see the final... :)
> >
>
> Unfortunately I have to put it away for a while, other demands on my
> (play)time, hopefully in a week or so I can get back to it.
>
> Thanks again!

   No problem, I understand.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Johnson" <chris(at)chris-j(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:

> Very nice! I must say I rather like the way the water looks in the
> distance - you can get that kind of blurred effect in longer exposure
> photographs.

Thanks. I'd better point out again (I did in my first post of this WIP,
but not in this one) that the trees in the bg are a photo. It's cheating
really and I'd hope to model them in any final post. The water is

    texture {
        pigment { rgbt 1.0 }
        normal {
            bumps 0.008
            scale 0.16
            // turbulence 0.5
        }
        finish {
            ambient 0.0
            diffuse 0.0
            reflection {
                0.5, 1.0
                fresnel on
            }
            specular 0.4
            roughness 0.003
        }
    }
    interior {
        ior 1.3
    }

with a black plane underneath it

> Alternatively, a texture a bit like
> http://www.gris.uni-tuebingen.de/~bartz/Photos/usa/rainier.jpg would work.
> I like the forground of this one where you can actually see the ripples,
> but both in that photo and (in my experience) in pov-ray, you can start
> getting odd pixels shining up bright at long distances, where the scale of
> the detail is much smaller than the pixel resolution. A lot of
> antialiasing might fix this though. BTW, google image search for "lake
> reflection" brings up a lot of nice photos of how this kind of thing looks
> for lake surfaces of various roughnesses.

anti-aliasing is probably the main reason why it took
Time For Parse:    0 hours  8 minutes  27.0 seconds (507 seconds)
Time For Trace:   81 hours 47 minutes  26.0 seconds (294274 seconds)
    Total Time:   81 hours 53 minutes   1.0 seconds (294781 seconds)
:-)

> I have a few other comments - it would be nice if the water was a bit
> higher, so that the small plant by the water line in the foreground was
> reflected more clearly. The trees in the background are also rather large,
> it seems to me. Perhaps the top of the trees could be visable in the lake,
> and some sky and scenery behind (a mountain?).

I'll have a look at raising the water level, it's keyed to the texture
and the hf of the far (and near) banks however.
I'm working from a reference photo, the trees are pretty much in keeping
with that.

> Very impressive overall though.

Thanks, It's slow going though :-)

> -Chris

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message