It's been a while since my last post, I was waiting until I got a render 
with no errors in it, but that doesn't look likely any time soon. So here we 
have the current stage of development.

Some big changes:
-A totally different volcano shape, with a much more violent feel to it. I 
like it but think maybe I went too far...
-The flying lava doesn't travel so far now, based on reference photos, 
though in this shot it's become too subtle so I'll crank it up some more.
-Lava rivers turned off -temporarily-! I was "improving" the algorithm, so 
currently it's totally broken.
-Heat haze underwater, looks a bit strange so I might get rid of it. But 
maybe when I put bubbles of steam in there it might all come together.
-Mountains! Finally the white cones in the background look like something 
real

And finally, the biggest change: All kindsa funky Megapov post-processing 
lens filters! Now before anyone criticises me for doing post processing 
please compare it to my IRTC winning entry from a couple of rounds ago, 
where I did a bunch of very similar effects the super-slow standard-pov way. 
At least doing them the megapov way just adds a short bit of time to the 
render, rather than making it 20 times slower!

Also, my suite of funky lens effects takes the form of a nicely 
parameterized include file which I will be distributing with the source to 
this image when I submit it to the IRTC. Ain't I nice?

Still to do:
-The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
-fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
-steam wherever lava touches water/snow
-...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any 
suggestions?

And that's about it. What do you think?

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (348 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'

Tek wrote:
> And that's about it. What do you think?

   It's looking quite good.

   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
even though I can't put my finger on it.
   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.

Post a reply to this message

Awesome!
The underwater is superb, looks like a photo: is the effect of the funky
lens?
Curious to see the final work!
;-)
Paolo

> "Tek" wrote
>
> It's been a while since my last post, I was waiting until I got a render
> with no errors in it, but that doesn't look likely any time soon. So here
we
> have the current stage of development.
>
> Some big changes:
> -A totally different volcano shape, with a much more violent feel to it. I
> like it but think maybe I went too far...
> -The flying lava doesn't travel so far now, based on reference photos,
> though in this shot it's become too subtle so I'll crank it up some more.
> -Lava rivers turned off -temporarily-! I was "improving" the algorithm, so
> currently it's totally broken.
> -Heat haze underwater, looks a bit strange so I might get rid of it. But
> maybe when I put bubbles of steam in there it might all come together.
> -Mountains! Finally the white cones in the background look like something
> real
>
> And finally, the biggest change: All kindsa funky Megapov post-processing
> lens filters! Now before anyone criticises me for doing post processing
> please compare it to my IRTC winning entry from a couple of rounds ago,
> where I did a bunch of very similar effects the super-slow standard-pov
way.
> At least doing them the megapov way just adds a short bit of time to the
> render, rather than making it 20 times slower!
>
> Also, my suite of funky lens effects takes the form of a nicely
> parameterized include file which I will be distributing with the source to
> this image when I submit it to the IRTC. Ain't I nice?
>
> Still to do:
> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why
> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
> -steam wherever lava touches water/snow
> -...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any
> suggestions?
>
> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I definitely agree, there's something that just doesn't quite look right. 
But I can't put my finger on it. At the moment I suspect it's the sky colour 
not matching the lighting & fog... maybe...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
>   It's looking quite good.
>
>   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
> even though I can't put my finger on it.
>   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.

Post a reply to this message

your progress is impressing.

Personally the underwater section looks quite good now and much better than
in WIP4.
In doubt I'ld concentrate my efforts on the media problems you mentioned,
otherwise some small bubbles would help a bit.
Some short remarks
- your old vulcanic shape was very symmetric, the new one is much more
visually pleasant.
- more flying lava please!
- and some bigger lava chunks too.
- perhaps such a big chunk hits the water surface at the left image part?
- meanwhile the fire is really good, but the ice aspect of the topic isn't -
perhaps one or more ice floes swimming at the left side or at the shoreline
can help.
- comparing the first WIPs with WIP5 you show more sky now. Perhaps you
should move the camera look_at a bit to the right.

I'm eagerly awaiting your source code...

Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> And that's about it. What do you think?

   Can't think right now... I'm atonished. Perhaps later... :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> 
> Still to do:
> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers

I think you will have to modify the terrain geometry for that.

> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)

Do you have sufficient max_trace_level?

> -steam wherever lava touches water/snow
> -...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any 
> suggestions?

Maybe some landslide - would be reasonable to occur during a vulcanic 
eruption...

Concerning realism - it is extremely difficult to achieve an impression 
of realism for the viewer with such an image where hardly anyone has a 
real life experience to compare to.  None the less i think the smoke is 
too fluffy.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:

> [snip]

Great work. I'd seen your previous posts, but this is a major step ahead.
Waiting to see the final image.
Bye
-- 
Txemi Jendrix.
Povray and CG: www.txemijendrix.com
Music: www.losmiercoles.net

Post a reply to this message

WOW

-- 
#####-----#####-----#####
POV Tips and Hints at ...
http://povman.blogspot.com/

Post a reply to this message

Still amazing.
caution: critical comments follow.

Lets see. Scale. The volcano is about 300px tall or 1000m per a previous
post or about 3m per pixel at the summit.
There's ultra-mega-coarse grain lava up there. You might find that with an
old inactive and eroded volcano I suppose, and this is not that. Also all
the smoke and dust must dull the snow off some?

And your slopes are still way too steep to be realistic (about 120+ degrees
at summit).
Check http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/kilauea/erupt/2553022_L.jpg
for a dose of realism with a new volcano 250m above the plain.
The photo gallery of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory is replete with all
sorts of well annotated pictures including hi-res.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/

The alternative is Disney :(

DLM


"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:43f2f8fa@news.povray.org...
> I definitely agree, there's something that just doesn't quite look right.
> But I can't put my finger on it. At the moment I suspect it's the sky
colour
> not matching the lighting & fog... maybe...
>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
> > Tek wrote:
> >> And that's about it. What do you think?
> >
> >   It's looking quite good.
> >
> >   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
> > even though I can't put my finger on it.
> >   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.
>
>

Post a reply to this message