POV-Tree for the trees and shrubs
Wings for the shoes and shoe topiaries
CSG for rest

This would be the ideal time to incorporate changes so criticism is 
welcome.  Foreground around the base of the treee is obviously 
unfinished.  To have ivy covering the ground there too is the current 
intention for that area.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'img.1118.jpg' (136 KB)

Preview of image 'img.1118.jpg'

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42be57cf@news.povray.org...
> POV-Tree for the trees and shrubs
> Wings for the shoes and shoe topiaries
> CSG for rest
>
> This would be the ideal time to incorporate changes so criticism is
> welcome.  Foreground around the base of the treee is obviously
> unfinished.  To have ivy covering the ground there too is the current
> intention for that area.
>
Nice scene!!

A problem with POVtree that I have not solved either, are the leaves that
seem to float in the air, without branches/twigs to attach them. This is
especially so in close-up. In groups or in the distance that doesn't really
matter. But it is annoying... A possible solution is probably to increase
the number of leaves in the bunches, to hide the absence of twigs. I think
that Gilles' tree macro did not have that problem.

I like the ivy and the way it drapes the shoe topiaries. How did you do
that, by the way?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Nice scene!!

Thanks!!


> 
> A problem with POVtree that I have not solved either, are the leaves that
> seem to float in the air, without branches/twigs to attach them. This is
> especially so in close-up. In groups or in the distance that doesn't really
> matter. But it is annoying... A possible solution is probably to increase
> the number of leaves in the bunches, to hide the absence of twigs. I think
> that Gilles' tree macro did not have that problem.

Yes, I hadn't turned my full attention to that yet.  I was hoping that 
it has something to do with "major radius", "minor radius" settings on 
the twig(?) tab.  Anyway, as you say, MakeTree would work just as well 
for these "canopy" leaves.  I also want to do a more detailed job an the 
actual leaves.  Those you see are just stock POV-Tree place holders.


> 
> I like the ivy and the way it drapes the shoe topiaries. How did you do
> that, by the way?


I am actually using the Wings vertex data.  The "frames" are build by 
joining vertices around each face.  But for the ivy, I "mined" out the 
average or center points for each face along with the average normal so 
I could use Reorient_Trans to correctly orient the bit of vine hanging 
from each point. It is very crude but seems adequate for this level of 
detail in this particular picture. The bits of hanging vine and their 
leaves were generated in POV then instanced.  I usually create an array 
of half a dozen or so random variations, then access the array randomly 
when I go to place and actual bit of vine.

The ivy on the trunk is arranged along real vine stalks which I applied 
using trace() together with spline definitions.  The trick there of 
course is to add each generated vine to the trace target object so that 
succeeding vines will ride over top of the preceding ones.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42bf2f4d$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> Yes, I hadn't turned my full attention to that yet.  I was hoping that
> it has something to do with "major radius", "minor radius" settings on
> the twig(?) tab.

Hmm. Yes. Don't remember if I played really seriously with that. Will have
to try.

>
> I am actually using the Wings vertex data.  The "frames" are build by
> joining vertices around each face.  But for the ivy, I "mined" out the
> average or center points for each face along with the average normal so
> I could use Reorient_Trans to correctly orient the bit of vine hanging
> from each point. It is very crude but seems adequate for this level of
> detail in this particular picture. The bits of hanging vine and their
> leaves were generated in POV then instanced.  I usually create an array
> of half a dozen or so random variations, then access the array randomly
> when I go to place and actual bit of vine.
>
Smart. Good work.

> The ivy on the trunk is arranged along real vine stalks which I applied
> using trace() together with spline definitions.  The trick there of
> course is to add each generated vine to the trace target object so that
> succeeding vines will ride over top of the preceding ones.
>
Smart too! An idea I had not yet explored. [so much to do!]

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>
>>Yes, I hadn't turned my full attention to that yet.  I was hoping that
>>it has something to do with "major radius", "minor radius" settings on
>>the twig(?) tab.
> 
> 
> Hmm. Yes. Don't remember if I played really seriously with that. Will have
> to try.
> 

I spent last evening on it.  I don't think it is possible to totally 
eliminate the gap.

On to plan B.  Convert MakeTree to output mesh or hopefully mesh2. :|

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:22:36 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>POV-Tree for the trees and shrubs
>Wings for the shoes and shoe topiaries
>CSG for rest
>
>This would be the ideal time to incorporate changes so criticism is 
>welcome.  Foreground around the base of the treee is obviously 
>unfinished.  To have ivy covering the ground there too is the current 
>intention for that area.

The path doesn't fit the back/mid ground. I can't put my finger on it

seem mismatched with respect to the path, I think. Besides that, I
think you're getting a foot fetish, Jim :-)
BTW the greenery's looking good.


Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen McAvoy wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:22:36 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
> wrote:
> 
> 

> 
> The path doesn't fit the back/mid ground. I can't put my finger on it

> seem mismatched with respect to the path, I think. 

Now that one I didn't quite expect.  But in a way you are pointing to 
the thing that was bothering me too, but I saw it in terms of the 
coloring.  This coloring was the first solution I was halfway happy 
with, ie the red brick road way and the light facing, but I wasn't sure 
it it would sell.

The blob is all of a piece, that is if I don't render the stairs, it 
would flow continuously.  So I wonder if that is it.  That if the 
expectation is that it would act as a retaining wall of sorts.  If it 
was truly a path, it would conform to the terrain more rather than being 
geometrically regular. But if it is geometrically regular then you 
should see the terrain conform to it?  In a cultivated garden the 
landscaper could actually have it both ways, I guess?  So maybe I need 
to either make the terrain more geometric to conform to the walkway or 
the walkway more conforming to the terrain.  Hmmm.  Kind of a b---h 
since that walkway was harder to do than I'd anticipated :(  It's not as 
if I didn't think of this before, it's just that I dismissed it with the 
idea that the whole thing is a fantasy anyway.  Something of a new thing 
for me, this fantasy business.

> Besides that, I
> think you're getting a foot fetish, Jim :-)

Yeah, but that's old news.  Melly nailed me on that one like four years 
ago.

This is an idea I've had since the "Gardens" round.  But I was unable to 
complete the entry in time back then.  Gilles, anyway, and I am sure 
many others, have been using mesh data to arrange objects since forever. 
  I always thought the topiary idea was screamingly obvious, what with 
the POVer's preoccupation with foliage generation and all, but I don't 
remember seeing anyone else do it so....
Somehow this idea of a fantasy garden of shoes seems like some sort of 
logical progression from the hundreds of paintings I used to do of shoes 
propped up on their toes:
http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/paintings/selectedmenu.html

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:26:01 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>> The path doesn't fit the back/mid ground. I can't put my finger on it

>> seem mismatched with respect to the path, I think. 
>
>Now that one I didn't quite expect.  But in a way you are pointing to 
>the thing that was bothering me too, but I saw it in terms of the 
>coloring.  This coloring was the first solution I was halfway happy 
>with, ie the red brick road way and the light facing, but I wasn't sure 
>it it would sell.
>
Yes the colouring but not of the walkway but the hillock. The texture
looks right if it is about a mile away but the path shows it is much
closer. This part of the image is hard to look at for me. Eye and mind
in conflict if you know what I mean. I like the lighting, the red
brick road and the water. I've already mentioned the trees and ivy I
think. The real shoes are a bit obscured by the bushes in the
background and I would like to see what they looked like lying
carelessly on the ground, at least one of them.

>> Besides that, I
>> think you're getting a foot fetish, Jim :-)
>
>Yeah, but that's old news.  Melly nailed me on that one like four years 
>ago.

Before my time. I only discovered the newsgroup when Moray 3.5 went
into beta. Anyway Tom has an eye for that sort of thing being a bit of



>http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/paintings/selectedmenu.html

Thanks for the link, very nice to see some of your work. I am
impressed.

Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42c08b15@news.povray.org...
> Stephen McAvoy wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:22:36 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >
> > The path doesn't fit the back/mid ground. I can't put my finger on it

> > seem mismatched with respect to the path, I think.
>
> Now that one I didn't quite expect.  But in a way you are pointing to
> the thing that was bothering me too, but I saw it in terms of the
> coloring.  This coloring was the first solution I was halfway happy
> with, ie the red brick road way and the light facing, but I wasn't sure
> it it would sell.
>
Hmm... I wonder if one of the causes of this is not the exact juxtaposition
of the left topiary and the branching of the path/staircase. This breaks the
perspective view at a crucial point (for the eyes).

> Somehow this idea of a fantasy garden of shoes seems like some sort of
> logical progression from the hundreds of paintings I used to do of shoes
> propped up on their toes:
> http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/paintings/selectedmenu.html
That is very good work, Jim. I believe that this may get people interested
in shoes you know! Quintessential, really.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
> news:42c08b15@news.povray.org...
> 
>>Stephen McAvoy wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:22:36 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>The path doesn't fit the back/mid ground. I can't put my finger on it

>>>seem mismatched with respect to the path, I think.
>>
>>Now that one I didn't quite expect.  But in a way you are pointing to
>>the thing that was bothering me too, but I saw it in terms of the
>>coloring.  This coloring was the first solution I was halfway happy
>>with, ie the red brick road way and the light facing, but I wasn't sure
>>it it would sell.
>>
> 
> Hmm... I wonder if one of the causes of this is not the exact juxtaposition
> of the left topiary and the branching of the path/staircase. This breaks the
> perspective view at a crucial point (for the eyes).
> 
The whole thing came about because I needed to do something with the far 
side of the pond.  I felt there needed to be some sort of wall or riser 
there, just behind that featured topiary, precisely to give the eye a 
reference point and to help profile the point where the topiary is 
supported. Having a hill just recede away into the background along with 
the converging lines of the surrounding walkway seemed unsatisfying. 
Once I put the riser there, the need to have it extend into the hill, 
somehow, was inevitable.  I kind of liked the stairs sweeping down and 
ending at the all important toe touch.  But in the general case it is 
well known that such convergences of lines in a picture are bad 
compositionally. precisely because they interrupt the sense of 
overlapping perspective.  The least I can do is rotate the stairs around 
the pond to the right some more or change the camera angle.  Actually, 
in my mind the wall was higher, but I wanted that sort of golf links 
look too, with fixtures extending into the distance on a rolling green. 
  Maybe I want too much



> 
>>Somehow this idea of a fantasy garden of shoes seems like some sort of
>>logical progression from the hundreds of paintings I used to do of shoes
>>propped up on their toes:
>>http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/paintings/selectedmenu.html
> 
> That is very good work, Jim. I believe that this may get people interested
> in shoes you know! Quintessential, really.
> 
> 
Thankyou.  I believe there is a *lot* of latency involved with shoes. 
If you look closely you may notice that I showed you the "selected" 
menu.  Inquiring minds may wonder what would be on the plain vanilla menu ;)

Post a reply to this message