 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_06.jpg' (250 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_06.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 08/07/2013 16.10 wrote:
> A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
>
> Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
>
> This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
>
> Thomas
The texture of the rocks is very nice, like in a painting.
Imho the boulder is a bit strange.
Nevertheless a great scene!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
I like the premise! My rock hammer's an Estwing, so you can bet I'd be sore if I
lost it while out mineral hunting. The guy in your image could very well be me
(except for the fact that I always double-or-triple-check my pack before moving
on). The man in your image really should have a pack, BTW.
> Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
>
> This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
I agree with Paolo that there is something amiss with the boulder. To me it
seems a bit out of place... but of course getting loose rocks to match the
landscape has always been a problem, IME.
> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
Could be much better, though. Are you using radiosity? If so, you can actually
get away with a count of 1, provided your surfaces are sufficiently detailed.
I'll try to post something to the TINA CHeP EOG thread later today to show you
what I mean.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 20:04, Samuel Benge wrote:
> I like the premise! My rock hammer's an Estwing, so you can bet I'd be sore if I
> lost it while out mineral hunting. The guy in your image could very well be me
> (except for the fact that I always double-or-triple-check my pack before moving
> on). The man in your image really should have a pack, BTW.
Great minds think alike ;-) My hammer is also an Estwing, and been with
me for the last 50 years. Never lost it happily. It now gets a bit rusty
in places... I am now modelling it for the scene; first a low detail
version, but I intend to make a high resolution one later on for a
projected close up of sorts. The least I can do for its faithful
services :-)
Indeed, the guy could also be me in fact. The pack is a good idea. I
shall work on that too.
> I agree with Paolo that there is something amiss with the boulder. To me it
> seems a bit out of place... but of course getting loose rocks to match the
> landscape has always been a problem, IME.
Yes, absolutely. I fact I had already decided to throw it out and
replace it with something better integrated in the scene.
>
>> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
>
> Could be much better, though. Are you using radiosity? If so, you can actually
> get away with a count of 1, provided your surfaces are sufficiently detailed.
> I'll try to post something to the TINA CHeP EOG thread later today to show you
> what I mean.
I am curious to see what you mean. I am indeed using radiosity. The
isosurface max_gradient is pretty low, much lower than recommended by
POV but giving the details I intend to get. With a lower count, I may
need to increase the max_gradient though.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 17:48, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> The texture of the rocks is very nice, like in a painting.
> Imho the boulder is a bit strange.
Yes, I fully agree. I am going to throw it out and put something else there.
> Nevertheless a great scene!
Thanks Paolo!
Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
natural history musea.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 09/07/2013 9.16 wrote:
> Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
> the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
> captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
> surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
> natural history musea.
Thank you for the suggestion: I will update the image!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some changes.
- Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
- increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
- switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
longer.
This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_07.jpg' (252 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_07.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue sky to
improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2013 15:55, s.day wrote:
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue
sky to
> improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
> would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
I knew already that you would say this ;-)
I was not too happy with that media which did not add much to the scene.
However, I might work on a small dust cloud generated by the wind.
Also, to give credit where credit is due: Scott's Skysim is used in
combination with CIE.inc for the sunlight.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 10/07/2013 13.08 wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
>
Very good!
But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
