 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A new version of the Alien Cliff.
Added have been: cloud, waterfall, "birds".
This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
especially for the lower half of the image.
I am curious about any comments of course!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Alien Cliff.jpg' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'Alien Cliff.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I am curious about any comments of course!
I like where the image is going. I'd look into the colors, it's all very
washed out. Might be the ground-fog... The blue of the sky, the green on the
hills, they could be more saturated.
And how is the image lit, only one lightsources (which obviously isn't the
sun with the flare, wrong shadows for that)? The shadows look very uniform,
so you might either want to add some handplaced fill-lights to simulate
diffuse light (e.g. a reddish lightsource near the cliff, so that objects in
front of it receive reflected light from it), or use radiosity or such. I
generally set ambient to 0 and play with fill-lights & radiosity.
As for that flare, I particularly don't like that it has four spikes. Is it
supposed to be a lense-flare, or just a "too bright to see" spot? In any
case I think the flare should be white, but maybe with a fade to yellow.
When things get too bright, you often just see white.
And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
isosurface... Isn't it possible to render a grayscale map from above and use
a heightfield? With various resolutions for foreground and background. The
hills don't have overhangs or such, so I don't think you really need the
slow isosurface there.
Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlnet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43e348c8@news.povray.org...
> A new version of the Alien Cliff.
> Added have been: cloud, waterfall, "birds".
> This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
> especially for the lower half of the image.
>
> I am curious about any comments of course!
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest order!
I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
the camera means the scale is more apparent.
Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate? It
looks fine, I was just curious...
Bring on the final!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to agree with Bill...I take a break for a month or so and come back
to some very exciting images.Considering that I seem to be wed to one
continuous project, I value the variety of work coming from most members of
this community. Quality is steadily improving and it is exciting to see new
users.
I am reminded of reading The Dragon Riders of Pern when I was younger. I
very much like the layers in this image and the way the color of the cliff
face is picked up by the plants on the plane in the foreground.
Excellent work Thomas!
Tim
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.43e34db1220a2816731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
> paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
>
> This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest
order!
> I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
> the camera means the scale is more apparent.
>
> Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
> much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
> yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate?
It
> looks fine, I was just curious...
>
> Bring on the final!
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great Image, I'm soooooooo jealous.
Some thoughts from "Mr Rent-An-Opinion"
The "particles" of the waterfall seem too big near the bottom. I think the
water need to be more spray-like or more solid. The water looks like it has
broken up into "lumps".
The Waterfall could do with a mist around its lower half.
The "lens flare" is a little overpowering.
The cloud above the lens flare seems to have small ridges, see the attached
image.
I see that Tim thinks you might add some more colour depth. I think the
opposite. The colour level is perfect, to my eyes.
--
#####-----#####-----#####
POV Tips and Hints at ...
http://povman.blogspot.com/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ridges.jpg' (3 KB)
Preview of image 'ridges.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> A new version of the Alien Cliff.
> Added have been: cloud, waterfall, "birds".
> This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
> especially for the lower half of the image.
>
> I am curious about any comments of course!
>
> Thomas
Looks very good... You really got the "huge-ness" factor in there now.
Just one nitpick, I think the lensflare is too big, too there.
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> schreef in
bericht news:43e34ca6$1@news.povray.org...
> > I am curious about any comments of course!
>
> I like where the image is going. I'd look into the colors, it's all very
> washed out. Might be the ground-fog... The blue of the sky, the green on
the
> hills, they could be more saturated.
>
The washed-out look comes mainly from the ground fog. I am not too
displeased with that as it is intentional for the landscape. The cliff for
instance is much sharper / neater than the landscape under some kind of
tropical blanket. But everything can certainly be tweaked more indeed!
> And how is the image lit, only one lightsources (which obviously isn't the
> sun with the flare, wrong shadows for that)? The shadows look very
uniform,
> so you might either want to add some handplaced fill-lights to simulate
> diffuse light (e.g. a reddish lightsource near the cliff, so that objects
in
> front of it receive reflected light from it), or use radiosity or such. I
> generally set ambient to 0 and play with fill-lights & radiosity.
>
There are three light sources in total: The main sun (outside the view)
generating the shadows; The yellow flare (dimmer) that does not seem to
produce shadows; a fill-in, shadowless light at the spot of the camera, with
a distance fade. Ambient is 0 in the whole scene. Radiosity would be the
next logical step here anyway.
> As for that flare, I particularly don't like that it has four spikes. Is
it
> supposed to be a lense-flare, or just a "too bright to see" spot? In any
> case I think the flare should be white, but maybe with a fade to yellow.
> When things get too bright, you often just see white.
>
Hmm, yes, I know what you mean. I have been hesitating between a lens flare
or a very bright spot. In fact, the second should be it. I have to look into
this...
> And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
> because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
> isosurface... Isn't it possible to render a grayscale map from above and
use
> a heightfield? With various resolutions for foreground and background. The
> hills don't have overhangs or such, so I don't think you really need the
> slow isosurface there.
>
Well, my system is old (win ME; about 6 years old; P3; 1G). I think it is
mainly the plants that slow down the render process, although the landscape
isosurface is slower indeed. But I don't know. I am a bit surprised because
with some 37000 objects, no media, no radiosity, it should be faster... I
shall certainly try the grey scale map as an alternative!
> Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...
>
Excellent Tim! You comments make good sense!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e34db1220a2816731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
> paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
>
LOL! Thanks Bill! I like this scene, but still.... I am not entirely
satisfied...
> This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest
order!
> I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
> the camera means the scale is more apparent.
>
yes, suddenly in a bright moment, I thought that the balloon needed to be
closer to the camera
> Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
> much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
> yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate?
It
> looks fine, I was just curious...
>
Yes. You can imagine the time I have already spent on the waterfall (based
on spray.inc by Chris Colefax by the way). I tried different settings, but
it needs more work
The yellow lit area comes from the background height_field. It is in fact
one of the used texture colors. Was not deliberate and is, IMO, too visible.
> Bring on the final!
I will!
Thomas
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Merrin Cullen" <tim### [at] wohrrcom> schreef in bericht
news:43e352a1$1@news.povray.org...
> I have to agree with Bill...I take a break for a month or so and come back
> to some very exciting images.Considering that I seem to be wed to one
> continuous project, I value the variety of work coming from most members
of
> this community. Quality is steadily improving and it is exciting to see
new
> users.
>
> I am reminded of reading The Dragon Riders of Pern when I was younger. I
> very much like the layers in this image and the way the color of the cliff
> face is picked up by the plants on the plane in the foreground.
>
> Excellent work Thomas!
>
Thanks indeed!
Although I had not Pern in mind when I started this image, I must admit that
it is moving somewhat in that direction. Yes, the cliff and plant colors are
intentionally similar.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"POVMAN" <s### [at] acom> schreef in bericht news:43e35434$1@news.povray.org...
> Great Image, I'm soooooooo jealous.
>
Thanks!!! No need to be jealous :-) it's just tedious, hard work ;-)
> Some thoughts from "Mr Rent-An-Opinion"
>
> The "particles" of the waterfall seem too big near the bottom. I think
the
> water need to be more spray-like or more solid. The water looks like it
has
> broken up into "lumps".
>
> The Waterfall could do with a mist around its lower half.
>
The waterfall is still an issue. Much better than when I started
implementing, but still... Need much more work. Possibly, spray.inc which I
used for it will not do in the end.
> The "lens flare" is a little overpowering.
>
I wonder what I am going to do with it... I am not really satisfied myself.
> The cloud above the lens flare seems to have small ridges, see the
attached
> image.
>
> I see that Tim thinks you might add some more colour depth. I think the
> opposite. The colour level is perfect, to my eyes.
>
Yes, this is a matter of taste. Personally, I am fairly content with the
present colour depth. But I might experiment some more...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
