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.
- Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors, all
with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.

Eventually the final picture will be rendered in 3000+ pixels and will take
at least six weeks on two computers.


Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'boreal_WIP2.jpg' (273 KB)

Preview of image 'boreal_WIP2.jpg'

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.

Nice.  What i wonder about is how the trees look at a higher resolution. 
  Coniferous trees are notoriously difficult becuase they are so detailed.

> Two questions:
> - The image seems to lack something - but what? I already added and deleted
> several animals, they didn't seem to fit.

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.

> - Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors, all
> with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.

Seems good to me.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

> - The image seems to lack something - but what? 

A beagle in the cockpit?

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:41054fa9@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.

> 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.
> - Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors, all
> with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.

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.

Also, the shadows seem to bright to me, especially on the rock and dead tree
in the foreground.

>
> Eventually the final picture will be rendered in 3000+ pixels and will
take
> at least six weeks on two computers.
>

Gee.  I've tried to keep my hi-rez renders under 3 weeks.  Perhaps I'm
limiting myself too much.

Have fun!  Nice work!

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:410598ac$1@news.povray.org...

> 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.

   If you look closely at the blue background, is there some forest
there too? Very faint. I think so, (I hope).


   ~Steve~


> Jeremy
> www.beantoad.com
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:41059acf@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <sla### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:410598ac$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > 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.
>
>    If you look closely at the blue background, is there some forest
> there too? Very faint. I think so, (I hope).
>
>


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.

-- 
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com

Post a reply to this message

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] gmxde> 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