 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Your underwater view is impressive indeed. Still, I feel that the flow is
> too thin to be really believable and natural looking. I would expect a
> more
> massive "wall" of lava with those fiery blobs sticking out.
That might be what you'd expect, but it's not what really happens. I've said
it before and I'll say it again, reference!:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/concepts/pillows.html (watch
the video at the bottom of the page).
And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the
composition to work with steeper edges. After all I'm not really going for
realism... Oh hold on I just contradicted myself :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlnet> wrote in message
news:43f43ab5@news.povray.org...
> This is a great improvement, Tek!
>
> Still, some unconfortable feelings. Although the shape of the volcano is
> much better, I think the slope is too steep. Volcano slopes are mainly
> made
> up of rubble and the "maximum angle of repose" of loose material is about
> 37
> degrees. This concerns all kind of slopes like screes, or dunes too. Your
> slope (to the left) is about 50 degrees.
>
> Your underwater view is impressive indeed. Still, I feel that the flow is
> too thin to be really believable and natural looking. I would expect a
> more
> massive "wall" of lava with those fiery blobs sticking out.
>
> Sorry for these comments! They come from my professional background
> mainly.
> You have created a great image already!
>
> Thomas
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
news:43f57d46$1@news.povray.org...
... Oh hold on I just contradicted myself :)
>
That's allright! ;-)
It is part of the artistic liberty! Just go on, your image is overwhelming
<cough (smoke & ash)> already!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No suggestions beyond what has already been said, but...
Great, great work. I've yet to master media in this way, and it looks just
fantastic. The above-below water split (although uncomplicated, I'm sure)
is also something I've never seen before.
Keep 'em coming... a classic in the making!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the
> composition to work with steeper edges.
Do you mean without? I believe the point was that your volcano is *too*
steep to be realistic :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doh yes that was a typo. It doesn't work without steep edges. Well spotted
:)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:43f602f2$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the
>> composition to work with steeper edges.
>
> Do you mean without? I believe the point was that your volcano is *too*
> steep to be realistic :)
>
> ...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Knocks my entry into a cocked hat ... amazing image and would probably get a
place even with no further changes.
Some constructive criticism...
The smoke towards the edges of the image is too blurred. In all photos I've
seen of a real-life eruption, the edges of the smoke plume are very
well-defined due to the sheer scale of it all and the fact that it won't be
moving upwards quickly enough to create any kind of motion blur).
The top-most edge of the crater is very sharply-defined and stands out a
little too much ... maybe place some smoke media in front of the edge to
blur it out a little?
Ian.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"IanT" <ian### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.43f6832d84388aa0e27474a40@news.povray.org...
> Knocks my entry into a cocked hat ... amazing image and would probably get
> a
> place even with no further changes.
>
> Some constructive criticism...
>
> The smoke towards the edges of the image is too blurred. In all photos
> I've
> seen of a real-life eruption, the edges of the smoke plume are very
> well-defined due to the sheer scale of it all and the fact that it won't
> be
> moving upwards quickly enough to create any kind of motion blur).
Yeah I think so too. I tried making the media a bit sharper but it caused
too many artefacts. I might go with an isosurface and completely constant
media density instead... hmm...
> The top-most edge of the crater is very sharply-defined and stands out a
> little too much ... maybe place some smoke media in front of the edge to
> blur it out a little?
Yeah, or maybe make it glow and blend into the lava... I'll try some things,
thanks for the suggestions very helpful :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message news:43f2e4e8@news.povray.org...
> And that's about it. What do you think?
I think it looks kewl.
One suggestion, you know for realism - The invisible camera appears to be half in and
half out of the water so that you can see both
the underwater lava as well as the volcano. How about a few water drops on the camera
lens above water line to give the viewer a
sense of perspective?
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good suggestion, but to make this shot work I've had to cheat and stick the
camera inside a 1m hole carved into the ocean. i.e. a real camera couldn't
get this view because the camera is actually quite a long way above the
surface of the water -which is how come we can see the top but not the
bottom of the water surface- and if I make it lower it totally destroys the
composition. So, water droplets would have to be 1m away to be consistent,
which would only serve to emphasize the trickery that I'm doing.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Ken" <ken### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:43f77913$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
> news:43f2e4e8@news.povray.org...
>
>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
> I think it looks kewl.
>
> One suggestion, you know for realism - The invisible camera appears to be
> half in and half out of the water so that you can see both the underwater
> lava as well as the volcano. How about a few water drops on the camera
> lens above water line to give the viewer a sense of perspective?
>
> Ken
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:43f787e0$1@news.povray.org...
> camera inside a 1m hole carved into the ocean. i.e. a real camera couldn't
> get this view because the camera is actually quite a long way above the
> surface of the water -which is how come we can see the top but not the
> bottom of the water surface-
Saw this cool (and hot) WIP a while ago and I didn't even see the lower part
until the third time I looked because I wasn't scrolling down far enough!
Ken's idea seems feasible to me. I can see how adding water droplets on an
imaginary lens might be difficult if you were to want them to be out of
focus from the nearness, but since the waterline is sharply focused that
could mean droplets might look okay. Maybe simply some blobs suspended out
there?
What this got me thinking about is the pillow lava needing broiling water
coming from the molten seams. Oh... wait... I'm reading your original
message again and that has been planned already. ;)
I really like the special-effects appearance you've created.
About that pesky media overlap problem... how about moving them away from
each other yet keeping scaled and translated to be seen correctly along the
line of sight?
Someone else suggested dirtying the snow in places, which I think would be a
nice touch. Perhaps possible to overlay a texture or add it into the one
already being used? Unless that causes a layering a layered texture error in
doing that.
Bob H
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
