Second version of my desert.
Dramatic change compared to first version comes from a slight rotation of
one of the isosurfaces.
This time, antialiasing was applied (total render time 1h 35' on a P3
machine).
I don't think I shall use radiosity. I associate deserts with harsh lighting
and deep shadows. I am afraid radiosity is going to smooth that out too
much.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'DesertLandscape2.jpg' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'DesertLandscape2.jpg'

I haven't posted here much, so I figure I'll take this chance to.

It looks really good!  I like the fading of the sky to th ground, and the
texture of the rocks.  The cactus is also very nicely done, and I do like
those hard shadows.

However, I'm confused by the lighting - the sky gets brighter to the right,
but the shadows indicate that the light source is from the left of the scene
(maybe this is a natural phenomenon of the coloring of the sky, but it seems
unnatural to me).  It also doesn't appear too "hot" somehow, as if it's
either an overcast day (which the sky doesn't show), or that the sun is
about to go down (which I guess makes sense, given the angle of the shadows,
so nevermind that comment  :P ).

Also, to be nitpicky, the top of the closer cactus seems to make the same
little twist as the one in the middle, which almost makes it look like
they're just two copies of the same one.  This isn't the case, on closer
inspection, but the first impression is that they're the same.  Maybe if the
bottom one twisted a little in the other direction at the top, it'd be more
obvious.

But still, a fine image, I like it.

Post a reply to this message

Looking better Thomas!  I love how the horizon is visible now.  I'd strongly
urge you to use radiosity.  Deserts do have harsh lighting but I think if
you let all the shadow fall to black its going to look like a moonscape, and
any sort of ambient_light in my opinion does not look realistic and washes
out the image.  You can use radiosity but still keep the lighting harsh.
Just don't let the sky do much coloring and keep the assumed gamma up.  The
rocky terrain in your picture has a lot of nooks and crannies that rad
lighting would benefit from.  Unless you are going to try multiple
shadowless sources?

Skip

Post a reply to this message

"Doug Kavendek" <dka### [at] stevensedu> schreef in bericht
news:4113a5a8$1@news.povray.org...
> However, I'm confused by the lighting - the sky gets brighter to the
right,
> but the shadows indicate that the light source is from the left of the
scene
> (maybe this is a natural phenomenon of the coloring of the sky, but it
seems
> unnatural to me).  It also doesn't appear too "hot" somehow, as if it's
> either an overcast day (which the sky doesn't show), or that the sun is
> about to go down (which I guess makes sense, given the angle of the
shadows,
> so nevermind that comment  :P ).

Aargh! Yes, you noticed!! The coloring of the sky comes from the fact that I
used a spotlight, and as the sphere representing the sky is not too large,
you get this effect. Initially, I wanted to use media, but, for the time
being, I abandoned that option.
Have still to look at sky and sun indeed.
>
> Also, to be nitpicky, the top of the closer cactus seems to make the same
> little twist as the one in the middle, which almost makes it look like
> they're just two copies of the same one.  This isn't the case, on closer
> inspection, but the first impression is that they're the same.  Maybe if
the
> bottom one twisted a little in the other direction at the top, it'd be
more
> obvious.

Well, they are the same object, only with a different scale and, of course,
y-rotation. Hmm... means I have to do something about this... In any case, I
am not entirely satisfied yet with them yet.
>
> But still, a fine image, I like it.

Thank you, indeed. Also for your comments!


Thomas
>

Post a reply to this message

"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aolcom> schreef in bericht
news:4113b438$1@news.povray.org...
> Looking better Thomas!  I love how the horizon is visible now.  I'd
strongly
> urge you to use radiosity.  Deserts do have harsh lighting but I think if
> you let all the shadow fall to black its going to look like a moonscape,
and
> any sort of ambient_light in my opinion does not look realistic and washes
> out the image.  You can use radiosity but still keep the lighting harsh.
> Just don't let the sky do much coloring and keep the assumed gamma up.
The
> rocky terrain in your picture has a lot of nooks and crannies that rad
> lighting would benefit from.  Unless you are going to try multiple
> shadowless sources?
>
Yes, I think you are right, I shall hav a try at radiosity in any case and
judge the result.
Multiple shadowless sources is another option I used for testing, but in the
end I would prefer radiosity.

Thanks for the comments!! Very useful.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Splendid picture!
May be the sand not enough white... But i "chipotte" ("nibble"
i think in English)
What's this fog at bottom ? Is it near of L.A ?
Friendly
Sylvain

Post a reply to this message

"leseur sylvain" <syl### [at] potar-hurlantcom> schreef in bericht
news:4114c041$1@news.povray.org...
> Splendid picture!
Merci! Merci!

> May be the sand not enough white... But i "chipotte" ("nibble"
> i think in English)
The sand corresponds somewhat to the surrounding rocks. The idea is that it
is their erosion product. Now, this is not always true of course, but I did
not want to give the impression of a beach resort :-)

> What's this fog at bottom ? Is it near of L.A ?
Well... no, I don't think so. It probably is some wind blown finer part of
the sand. Should be less yellow I guess.

It came suddenly to my mind that this is the "Kabeljauw Woestenij", which

Cabillaud".
In my imagination, this waste was first discovered by the Dutch explorer
Johannes Isidorusz. Kabeljauw, in 1612. Of course, the poor man died there.
Fortunately, he only exists in my mind!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> > May be the sand not enough white... But i "chipotte" ("nibble"
> > i think in English)
> The sand corresponds somewhat to the surrounding rocks. The idea is that
it
> is their erosion product. Now, this is not always true of course, but I
did
> not want to give the impression of a beach resort :-)
Ok you're right. May be with this kind of desert there is no sand, just
stones (pebbles)...
A cross like in Mexican's desert...  A cemetery.... Fossiles....
(Talking of that, i don't find the plug infor fossils)
SeaShell...

> It came suddenly to my mind that this is the "Kabeljauw Woestenij", which

> Cabillaud".
> In my imagination, this waste was first discovered by the Dutch explorer
> Johannes Isidorusz. Kabeljauw, in 1612. Of course, the poor man died
there.
> Fortunately, he only exists in my mind!!
It's a pity ! No scoop today !:0=(
Friendly
Sylvain

Post a reply to this message