 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi:
Just a quick LOTW for the ending week. I've made some changes to the
code, but more are still pending, so I'm not updating the code this week.
I maintained the "successive warps", but reduced the octaves as
suggested by Christoph, which helped greatly to reduce the render time.
This one took 4 hours, with max_gradient 3 on the isosurface, 2
intervals for the media clouds and 90000 iso-trees. No radiosity, only 3
shadowless lights with media off.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lotw-040704.jpg' (159 KB)
Preview of image 'lotw-040704.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Just a quick LOTW for the ending week. I've made some changes to the
> code, but more are still pending, so I'm not updating the code this week.
>
> I maintained the "successive warps", but reduced the octaves as
> suggested by Christoph, which helped greatly to reduce the render time.
> This one took 4 hours, with max_gradient 3 on the isosurface, 2
> intervals for the media clouds and 90000 iso-trees. No radiosity, only 3
> shadowless lights with media off.
Nice, how does the render speed of the sky part compare to the terrain?
I assume the sky is quite a bit slower?
Is this randomly set up or did you select the composition manually?
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The vegetation looks superb. I think the rock surface looks a bit too smooth,
and the clouds on the right don't look as realistic as the ones on the left. But
on the whole very pretty.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote in message
news:40e7d173@news.povray.org...
> Hi:
>
> Just a quick LOTW for the ending week. I've made some changes to the
> code, but more are still pending, so I'm not updating the code this week.
>
> I maintained the "successive warps", but reduced the octaves as
> suggested by Christoph, which helped greatly to reduce the render time.
> This one took 4 hours, with max_gradient 3 on the isosurface, 2
> intervals for the media clouds and 90000 iso-trees. No radiosity, only 3
> shadowless lights with media off.
>
> --
> Jaime
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Flippin' heck!
DAM that's fantastic...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
Words will surely fail...
But among other things, I love the complexity, but with variation, that
you get in the vegetated, eroded slope descending on the left,...I can
see getting one or the other, but both? And then you add the further
element of exposed rock structure on the vertical face!
Whether it was previously, your landscapes have become a contemplation.
We have the look of raw chaos, balanced against a sense of chaos directed.
I believe, with this picture for instance, this contemplation does not
depend on admiration for your technique. Beacuse you have achieve a
degree of realism which delivers to the viewer the experience of viewing
a landscape. It is not an actual picture of existing landscape. Neither
is it a result produced from describing the events that generate
landscape. Rather it is a picture which harnesses the computer's
ability with complexity to produce the look of landscape. And
contemplating the look of a landscape is exactly what we do when we
climb to a vantage and gaze out.
But your technique, oriented towards producing a universal landscape
engine, does add a dimension of meaning. Automation gives us complexity
in the form of quantity. To this we can add variation, some random,
some not. But the variation you produce looks truly various not
simulated, and just in the way a landscape does. How do you achieve
that, one wonders. To automate you must establish parameters, and
general structures, to direct random events. The additions of scene
elements can never rise above a manual checklist. So landscape is not
infinitely various? Yet it is this sense of unlimited variation that
gives so much pleasure. Is your guide post creation itself, or the look
of creation?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
Great work Jaime.
Only one comment, the trees seem too similar both in shape, variety of
species and distribution. But hell that's just nit picking, it's superb :-)
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
de news: 40e7d173@news.povray.org...
Wow
now I know where I'll spend my trekking holydays.
I love the stone structure showing tilted sedimentary rocks layers and
vertically bound erosion.
Just my piece of nitpick: you have (at least) two cloud types: cumulus and
altostratus.
Altostrati should be way higher than cumuli and faded by atmospheric haze
down to horizon.
But it is just in a realistic aiming view, your clouds look as on a
classical painting :-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Nice, how does the render speed of the sky part compare to the terrain?
> I assume the sky is quite a bit slower?
Yes... although not much more. A solution I figured out for quick
skies is to choose a fixed sun placement and render a spherical map of
the media clouds to use it later on the scene with the same sun
position, but it needs very high resolution images. Rendering a decent
skymap can take several weeks... and it only serves for a concrete sun
placement.
BTW, I used 3 intervals, not 2 as I said before.
> Is this randomly set up or did you select the composition manually?
Almost totally random, as I added an optional main seed to generate
individual seeds for each feature. In this one I've manually selected
the terrain and fog colors, the sun placement, and the diameter and
center of the vegetation area (based on the camera placement, which is
random, as it should be!;)
There is something very addictive in trying seed after seed until you
find a nice setup... I'm using the animation features to get a different
landscape on each frame, so I can let it automatically render many low
res tests, to latter chose the best ones and tweak them manually.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Yes... although not much more. A solution I figured out for quick
> skies is to choose a fixed sun placement and render a spherical map of
> the media clouds to use it later on the scene with the same sun
> position, but it needs very high resolution images. Rendering a decent
> skymap can take several weeks... and it only serves for a concrete sun
> placement.
But when you have one sky map you can rotate it arbitrarily around the
vertical axis to get different sun positions in azimuth. The height of
the sun is of course fixed, as well as the position of the clouds
relative to the sun. And for good results you would of course need a
high dynamic range map.
>
>> Is this randomly set up or did you select the composition manually?
>
>
> Almost totally random, as I added an optional main seed to generate
> individual seeds for each feature. In this one I've manually selected
> the terrain and fog colors, the sun placement, and the diameter and
> center of the vegetation area (based on the camera placement, which is
> random, as it should be!;)
>
> There is something very addictive in trying seed after seed until you
> find a nice setup... I'm using the animation features to get a different
> landscape on each frame, so I can let it automatically render many low
> res tests, to latter chose the best ones and tweak them manually.
This is exactly what i meant. In fact it does not matter much if you
manually tweak the settings or if you try random scenes until you find
one that looks good. The thing i am having trouble with is to get the
random parameter selection to *always* produce a scene that looks
reasonable.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Words will surely fail...
Specially due to my poor english skills...
> But among other things, I love the complexity, but with variation, that
> you get in the vegetated, eroded slope descending on the left,...I can
> see getting one or the other, but both? And then you add the further
> element of exposed rock structure on the vertical face!
Multiplying two pigment functions gives fantastic complexity with
great variation, specially if the two pigments are at different scales.
> ...ability with complexity to produce the look of landscape. And
> contemplating the look of a landscape is exactly what we do when we
> climb to a vantage and gaze out.
Yes, I was going for a sort of impressionism, giving just enough
detail to let the brain do the rest. It requires a proper resolution,
not too low to avoid losing details, but also not high enough to show
the real CG nature.
> ... But the variation you produce looks truly various not
> simulated, and just in the way a landscape does. How do you achieve
> that, one wonders. To automate you must establish parameters, and
> general structures, to direct random events. The additions of scene
> elements can never rise above a manual checklist. So landscape is not
> infinitely various? Yet it is this sense of unlimited variation that
> gives so much pleasure.
It is infinitely various in the sense that you must provide the
isosurface function. This function is later used with a random color map
and translated and turbulated randomly, so the variation you can get is
really high.
> Is your guide post creation itself, or the look of creation?
I'm not sure to understand correctly the question... if you ask for
my motivation, it is always to be surprised by the results, and this is
greatly accomplished with highly random scenes like this one. I even use
randomly guided cameras and lights placement on my "usual" scenes, as my
composition abilities are not well developed (but I can recognize a good
composition when I see it, which is enough with trial&error techniques).
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
