 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Thanks, also for the reference pic, as it served to polish some details,
> including some of the ones you mention later.
Nice. I liked the other trees better. These look like those tufts of foam or
moss you get for making model railroad tracks. The previous version had
fronds and branches visible, and even some trunks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> Thanks, also for the reference pic, as it served to polish some
>> details,
>> including some of the ones you mention later.
>
> Nice. I liked the other trees better. These look like those tufts of
> foam or moss you get for making model railroad tracks. The previous
> version had fronds and branches visible, and even some trunks.
I agree, but perhaps it's because they were a bit further away? Also,
in the original there seems there were a few palm trees scattered.
I did enjoy the variation in color and size, though. And in the light
reflection in the river. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I agree, but perhaps it's because they were a bit further away? Also,
> in the original there seems there were a few palm trees scattered.
Indeed. The bits of details give the reality. :-)
> I did enjoy the variation in color and size, though. And in the light
> reflection in the river. :)
Oh, yes. The only complaint was the consistency of folliage.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > I agree, but perhaps it's because they were a bit further away? Also,
> > in the original there seems there were a few palm trees scattered.
>
> Indeed. The bits of details give the reality. :-)
Sometimes it doesn't even need so much detail. Here's something I
hacked away today in Blender inspired by Jaime.
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1628561#post1628561
no leafs, just some blob-like object with some "cloud bump mapping" on...
hope Sam gets inspired too... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Google image search is becoming my first source for unexpected
> inspiration... as usual, I was searching for something else, when found a
> nice aerial pic of the Amazon river.
>
> Here are some details about this "quick hack":
Sorry to be so late in replying to your wonderful images; when I was looking
through the 'image digest' days ago, I thought someone had simply posted a
reference photograph of the Amazon! I didn't think of looking more closely 'til
now... :-( How embarrassing...
Beautiful! And thanks for posting all the nice how-to details.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, no. I think the first image was much better. The color variation of
the canopy looks artificial here (only two colors? or so it appears) and the
mist/cloud is a bit too stiff/heavy.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> schreef in bericht
news:4bf28f4b@news.povray.org...
> Indeed you could use this technique for that... it's very easy,
> specially
> if you are already using a heighfield for the ground. Make a copy of the
> grayscale map, and paint black the zones where you don't want grass, and
> white for the rest. Then declare a pigment function of it:
>
...and using red, green, and/or blue you can add even more distribution
possibilities; or using the greyscale intensity of course. As this, in the
end, may need much parse time, it is efficient to save the values (position,
distribution type, etc) to file and read them separately. I used that
technique for the vegetation of my TC-RTC entries:
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index118.html and
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index153.html
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.05.2010 13:11, schrieb Jaime Vives Piqueres:
> For the color variation I used directly colors picked from the pic you
> linked, but they don't look so natural... perhaps because the sunlight
> color
> is somewhat yellowish.
... or perhaps because you didn't gamma-adjust the colors you picked?
Note that image manipulation programs usually give you
gamma-precorrected colors, while if you follow best practices you will
need linear colors in POV-Ray, i.e. you'll usually want to use e.g.
color rgb <pow(R/255, 2.2), pow(G/255, 2.2), pow(B/255, 2.2)>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Sorry, no. I think the first image was much better. The color variation
of
> the canopy looks artificial here (only two colors? or so it appears) an
d the
> mist/cloud is a bit too stiff/heavy.
>
Plus, the light reflecting off the river looks wrong to me...
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
