On 10-11-2014 15:34, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> His arms look too short.  Are they foreshortened?  If so, they don't look so.
>

Standard arms. Standard figure. Must be illusion :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

A very nice start. Maybe it is easier to place the ladders in the background a
little bit closer to the camera. That would not change the image very much but
could spare additional rendering time.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 10/11/2014 18:47, MichaelJF wrote:
> A very nice start. Maybe it is easier to place the ladders in the background a
> little bit closer to the camera. That would not change the image very much but
> could spare additional rendering time.
>

I have been thinking that if one of the light sources was moved so that 
the ladder's shadows fell onto the mist. It might look like a "glory".


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> For the time being, a stand-in. Missing rungs is a render issue. This is
> improved with stochastic rendering, although render time is much
> increased. I still have to experiment for the best balance.

Do you still get the same issue with focal blur?

> The ground texture itself will not really be changed. It is supposed to
> be related to so-called 'patterned grounds' in periglacial areas.
> However, I have now added rocks etc. Maybe more is needed...
>

Indeed, having googled periglacial I see that something I think does not look
natural is in fact a very natural phenomenon. If anything compared to the images
I have just seen your texture is not uniform enough but I realise this is not a
work aiming at realism.

I look forward to seeing the next post and being educated further ;-)

Sean

Post a reply to this message

On 11-11-2014 0:38, s.day wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>> For the time being, a stand-in. Missing rungs is a render issue. This is
>> improved with stochastic rendering, although render time is much
>> increased. I still have to experiment for the best balance.
>
> Do you still get the same issue with focal blur?
>
>> The ground texture itself will not really be changed. It is supposed to
>> be related to so-called 'patterned grounds' in periglacial areas.
>> However, I have now added rocks etc. Maybe more is needed...
>>
>
> Indeed, having googled periglacial I see that something I think does not look
> natural is in fact a very natural phenomenon. If anything compared to the images
> I have just seen your texture is not uniform enough but I realise this is not a
> work aiming at realism.

Interesting isn't? The natural world is full of surprises. My first try 
out was more uniform but I did not like that too much so I introduced a 
bit of turbulence. I have added rocks randomly but I realise now that I 
need to relate them more to the pattern (evalpig is your friend).

>
> I look forward to seeing the next post and being educated further ;-)

I shall endeavour to do that :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 10-11-2014 21:13, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/11/2014 18:47, MichaelJF wrote:
>> A very nice start. Maybe it is easier to place the ladders in the
>> background a
>> little bit closer to the camera. That would not change the image very
>> much but
>> could spare additional rendering time.

Yes, I can try that indeed. Not that the ladders slow down the render 
that much by the way.

>>
>
> I have been thinking that if one of the light sources was moved so that
> the ladder's shadows fell onto the mist. It might look like a "glory".
>
>
The ladders are enclosed into the mist but I am afraid they are too thin 
to really make a glory.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11-11-2014 0:38, s.day wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>> For the time being, a stand-in. Missing rungs is a render issue. This is
>> improved with stochastic rendering, although render time is much
>> increased. I still have to experiment for the best balance.
>
> Do you still get the same issue with focal blur?
>

This is something I have not tried yet. I expect the issue to disappear 
indeed. I would prefer stochastic render in the end but I found that I 
first need to wait for the next Uberpov version addressing the problem I 
had with Silentium.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> On 11-11-2014 0:38, s.day wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the time being, a stand-in. Missing rungs is a render issue. This is
>>> improved with stochastic rendering, although render time is much
>>> increased. I still have to experiment for the best balance.
>>
>> Do you still get the same issue with focal blur?
>>
>
> This is something I have not tried yet. I expect the issue to disappear
> indeed. I would prefer stochastic render in the end but I found that I
> first need to wait for the next Uberpov version addressing the problem I
> had with Silentium.
>
> Thomas
>

Another option would be to make the runs thicker. That way, they will 
have more chances of showing. The trick here is to find a sweet spot 
where it's large enough that they are not missed but still thin enough 
so that they don't look bloated.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:

> > On 11-11-2014 0:38, s.day wrote:
> >> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For the time being, a stand-in. Missing rungs is a render issue. This is
> >>> improved with stochastic rendering, although render time is much
> >>> increased. I still have to experiment for the best balance.
> >>
> >> Do you still get the same issue with focal blur?
> >>
> >
> > This is something I have not tried yet. I expect the issue to disappear
> > indeed. I would prefer stochastic render in the end but I found that I
> > first need to wait for the next Uberpov version addressing the problem I
> > had with Silentium.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
>
> Another option would be to make the runs thicker. That way, they will
> have more chances of showing. The trick here is to find a sweet spot
> where it's large enough that they are not missed but still thin enough
> so that they don't look bloated.

Or, if it doesn't take too much time, render an oversized image, then shrink it
down.

Post a reply to this message

On 12-11-2014 5:24, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>> Another option would be to make the runs thicker. That way, they will
>> have more chances of showing. The trick here is to find a sweet spot
>> where it's large enough that they are not missed but still thin enough
>> so that they don't look bloated.
>
> Or, if it doesn't take too much time, render an oversized image, then shrink it
> down.
>

Both suggestions are good to follow up although I slightly do prefer the 
second one. It may be that I can go forward with Uberpov as I have 
changed some of the textures that were offensive to it. I need to check 
again. Stochastic aa remains the best solution by far.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message