 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
> I want to finish this WIP, but how?
> Starting from an atmosphere test (thanks to Abe for the starting point), the
> scene quickly developed to an half-finished state.
> Recently Gilles Tran motivated me to start working on it again after showing
> an earlier version to him along the way.
> The rock and the dead mossy tree are still likely to be changed.
>
> Two questions:
> - The image seems to lack something - but what? I already added and deleted
> several animals, they didn't seem to fit.
The sense of "lacking" might be primary to the theme itself. The main
question is who is the viewer? What is the viewer's relationship to the
plane? The title is "boreal", northern, but the larger theme is
"primordial", primeval,...pristine. The sense of which is punctuated by
the bush flight. Whatever else you add to the scene must confront this
dilemma. That is why animals won't work unless you define what they are
saying about the plane and the viewer. The scene hinges on this
mystery. Is it a mundane snap of a plane buzzing a bush fire? Or is
there something more?
Three things strike me as so wonderful about the scene. The sense of
the foliage. Not only the contrast between the structures of two
ancient species, but the sense of their placement, the way they occupy
space, push against the air, sustain their own weight. The sense of
terrain, its scale, and its extension into the distance. And the
dramatic effect of the lens distortion which makes our viewing of the
scene immediately self-conscious.
> - Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors, all
> with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.
>
>
Brightness looks perfect to me. I can see the texture in the closer tree
trunks yet the shadows look deep and delicious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>> Two questions:
>> - The image seems to lack something - but what? I already added and
>> deleted several animals, they didn't seem to fit.
>> - Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors,
>> all with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.
The image looks great to me. Personally I'd lose the plane. It doesn't look in
place. It looks as if you placed the plane exactly there so it wouldn't be
behind any trees. You might want to try moving it a bit to the left, so it is
partially covered by the trees. IMHO, also animals aren't needed.
The brightness of the picture looks okay to me.
--
M.E.J.R.Hendrix
a s o e
u t r n
r e i s
i r e
c n
e
Quote of the minute:
Never read any book that is not a year old. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
Awesome. I've never been in that kind of forest, so I can't say if
anything is missing. I think that if this were a photograph, the
photographer would use a different lens which would show less
distortion. Distortion may be your intention, however.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmx de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ce3ka9$v1f$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Nice. What i wonder about is how the trees look at a higher resolution.
> Coniferous trees are notoriously difficult becuase they are so detailed.
>
Hi Christoph,
the two nearest trunks are replaced by isosurfaces, so a higher resolution
render will not look that bad.
I include an image of the isosurface.
> I think it lacks some structure. The background is quite strongly
> blurred and the foreground is very uniform. Something like a detailed
> rock or piece of wood quite close to the camera would be good.
Good points, I'll think about. Thanx for your advise.
Norebrt Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I forgot the trunk image -
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'isotrunk.jpg' (78 KB)
Preview of image 'isotrunk.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41058747$1@news.povray.org...
> > - The image seems to lack something - but what?
>
> A beagle in the cockpit?
?
I don't know, what you mean; Can you help me?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:410598ac$1@news.povray.org...
> First, it's marvelous. I love "outdoor" scenes, and scenes like this have
> crossed my mind, but I've never tried it, thinking it would be quite
> difficult to do.
Thank you very much.
> Something seems funny, strange with the forest itself. Should there be
more
> trees in the back at a lower elevation? It seems like it. In other
words,
> we're presumably looking over a hill. I would expect some more distant
> trees in the nearer distance.
You are right, I'll change that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41059e04@news.povray.org...
> Yes, I think those are trees.
>
> My point was that as the eye wanders down the hill that "we" are on, the
> trees seem to stop abruptly. I guess that side of the hill could have
been
> logged recently (or there could be a cliff, etc.), but it seems strange to
> me as I look at it. "Distant trees in the nearer distance" isn't very
good
> verbage, but that's what I was getting at.
>
> Nevertheless, that's just my opinion. It's a great picture.
Thank you very much for that.
I like it by myself, which isn't often the case with test scenes.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4105bc68$1@news.povray.org...
>
> The sense of "lacking" might be primary to the theme itself. The main
> question is who is the viewer? What is the viewer's relationship to the
> plane? The title is "boreal", northern, but the larger theme is
> "primordial", primeval,...pristine. The sense of which is punctuated by
> the bush flight. Whatever else you add to the scene must confront this
> dilemma. That is why animals won't work unless you define what they are
> saying about the plane and the viewer. The scene hinges on this
> mystery. Is it a mundane snap of a plane buzzing a bush fire? Or is
> there something more?
Nice and deep thoughts, thank you for it. I have to sleep about it.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:41066be7$1@news.povray.org...
> Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Awesome. I've never been in that kind of forest, so I can't say if
> anything is missing. I think that if this were a photograph, the
> photographer would use a different lens which would show less
> distortion. Distortion may be your intention, however.
>
> -Shay
I'll try some camera alternatives, thanx for the tip.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
