 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'toy_boat.jpg' (196 KB)
Preview of image 'toy_boat.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jhu wrote:
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
Excellent. Just what I need to play with in the bathtub :-)
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvy pbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || These opinions are mine alone, || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || others can find their own || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Really cute, I love de DOF :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam <seb### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Really cute, I love de DOF :-)
I find DOF makes close-up images better looking. I rendered it without DOF and
it just doesn't look as good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jhu schrieb:
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
Source code or it's a photograph! ;-)
Amazing work. I'd add a bit more large-scale turbulences and offset to
the wood grain though, so that it does /not/ coincide precisely with the
shape of the hull. I also think it's a particularly unusual orientation
of the wood grain, as it would be prone to cracking (though it might be
feasible with the segmented configuration you used, which admittedly is
visually very appealing with this shape).
I'd also suggest to laquer the ships (transparent of course), or
otherwise protect them against the water. As it is, the wood looks
untreated to me, so I guess if it would see frequent use it might soon
become wet and deform.
I like your use of focal blur to give a sense of scale. Some people here
will probably disagree, but I think it's just the right amount of blur
for this purpose and scale.
Is the rear boat sinking? Looks like its deck is partially submerged.
And then there's still quite some edges left that ask to be "broken"
(i.e. beveled or rounded with a small diameter).
If you want to do it perfect, you may also want to model the holes in
which the masts and stuff are mounted (you didn't just glue them to the
surface, did you?).
But even as it is now, I'd consider the image Hall-Of-Fame quality.
Might make a great showcase scene for wood grain, focal blur, and water.
How long did it take to render?
As I mention this, I notice one issue that would make it unsuitable as a
showcase scene: Some parts (especially the masts) seem to have a much
finer grain than the hull; so that's more like an example of how /not/
to do it ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> jhu schrieb:
> > Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
>
> Source code or it's a photograph! ;-)
>
> Amazing work. I'd add a bit more large-scale turbulences and offset to
> the wood grain though, so that it does /not/ coincide precisely with the
> shape of the hull. I also think it's a particularly unusual orientation
> of the wood grain, as it would be prone to cracking (though it might be
> feasible with the segmented configuration you used, which admittedly is
> visually very appealing with this shape).
>
> I'd also suggest to laquer the ships (transparent of course), or
> otherwise protect them against the water. As it is, the wood looks
> untreated to me, so I guess if it would see frequent use it might soon
> become wet and deform.
>
> I like your use of focal blur to give a sense of scale. Some people here
> will probably disagree, but I think it's just the right amount of blur
> for this purpose and scale.
>
> Is the rear boat sinking? Looks like its deck is partially submerged.
>
> And then there's still quite some edges left that ask to be "broken"
> (i.e. beveled or rounded with a small diameter).
>
> If you want to do it perfect, you may also want to model the holes in
> which the masts and stuff are mounted (you didn't just glue them to the
> surface, did you?).
>
> But even as it is now, I'd consider the image Hall-Of-Fame quality.
> Might make a great showcase scene for wood grain, focal blur, and water.
> How long did it take to render?
>
> As I mention this, I notice one issue that would make it unsuitable as a
> showcase scene: Some parts (especially the masts) seem to have a much
> finer grain than the hull; so that's more like an example of how /not/
> to do it ;-)
Thanks for the complements and suggestions. I'll see what I can do about those
issues. I think I'll also add a little flag pole and flag somewhere.
It took 60 hours to render at 1080p resolution (to fit my TV!).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
Very nice.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
It looks like the boat in back is sinking - possibly due to the treacherous
rocks in the stream... Maybe add some hull damage to the sinking boat...
I like the simplicity of this picture. It's very well balanced.
Regards,
Dave Blandston
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.4ba55e60e21b6680914fd7390@news.povray.org...
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
>
Excellent work indeed! Woodgrain is very natural looking overall. Also good
use of DoF. For once, I agree ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>jhu on date 21/03/2010 00:46 wrote:
> Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
Cool!
Is very... realistic!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
