 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think the shrooms still deserve a bit of subsurface scattering.
> They look to artificial as they are.
>
Here is the final (I promise) version, using a bit of subsurface{} on
the mushrooms. Also, the moss is a bit greener as Sven suggested. The
focal blur has a few more samples, so finally it took almost 11h to
render...
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'crystals-cave-09.jpg' (290 KB)
Preview of image 'crystals-cave-09.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/1/2016 2:54 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Here is the final (I promise) version, using a bit of subsurface{} on
> the mushrooms. Also, the moss is a bit greener as Sven suggested. The
> focal blur has a few more samples, so finally it took almost 11h to
> render...
I like the color of the moss. I love the crystals. But this line of
shrooms bugs me. While my eye is looking at the centerpiece crystal, my
brain is tugging me to the two shrooms with the same s-shaped stem.
Which then makes me aware that there is a line of shrooms.
I almost mentioned in the last version that I would change one of those
two stems. And it might not even be as noticeable this version because
the foreground s-stem is in shadow. But I can't unsee it to tell. :)
I'm not a big fan of the focal blur. It looks fine on the background
shrooms top-left, but it looks cheesy on the front left clump of shrooms.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'crystals-cave-09-detail-dick.jpg' (19 KB)
Preview of image 'crystals-cave-09-detail-dick.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I like the color of the moss. I love the crystals. But this line of
> shrooms bugs me. While my eye is looking at the centerpiece
> crystal, my brain is tugging me to the two shrooms with the same
> s-shaped stem. Which then makes me aware that there is a line of
> shrooms. I almost mentioned in the last version that I would change
> one of those two stems. And it might not even be as noticeable this
> version because the foreground s-stem is in shadow. But I can't
> unsee it to tell. :)
The similar stems are just a coincidence, because every mushroom has a
randomly generated sphereweep for the stem, and them they are randomly
rotated around y. Indeed the spheresweep has only 4 points, so it's not
that difficult to end up with similar stems.
> I'm not a big fan of the focal blur. It looks fine on the background
> shrooms top-left, but it looks cheesy on the front left clump of
> shrooms.
This one is not casual, but a flaw on my thinking... I used a pigment
function to place the mushrooms in clumps, and I badly chose "leopard"
without realizing it is too regular.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I like the color of the moss. I love the crystals. But this line of
> shrooms bugs me. While my eye is looking at the centerpiece
> crystal, my brain is tugging me to the two shrooms with the same
> s-shaped stem. Which then makes me aware that there is a line of
> shrooms. I almost mentioned in the last version that I would change
> one of those two stems. And it might not even be as noticeable this
> version because the foreground s-stem is in shadow. But I can't
> unsee it to tell.
The similar stems are just a coincidence, because every mushroom has a
randomly generated sphereweep for the stem, and them they are randomly
rotated around y. Indeed the spheresweep has only 4 points, so it's not
that difficult to end up with similar stems.
The mushrooms line however is not casual, but a flaw on my
thinking... I used a pigment function to place the mushrooms in clumps,
and I badly chose "leopard" without realizing it is too regular.
> I'm not a big fan of the focal blur. It looks fine on the background
> shrooms top-left, but it looks cheesy on the front left clump of
> shrooms.
Well, I used only 42 samples, so it's a bit grainy, yes...
---
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/1/2016 4:38 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> The similar stems are just a coincidence, because every mushroom has a
> randomly generated sphereweep for the stem, and them they are randomly
> rotated around y. Indeed the spheresweep has only 4 points, so it's not
> that difficult to end up with similar stems.
Yes, I could see that. I sometimes throw random numbers on the floor
just to "stir the soup" if I don't like what I'm getting. (In fact, I've
got a story about that coming up soon...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignorancia org> wrote:
> El 22/02/16 a las 21:38, dick balaska escribió:
> > "In the valley of Liebendor past the mountains of Throng..."
>
> :)
>
> > (I didn't care for the moss and rock texture in the previously posted
> > yellow version. They looked too, um, flat? ... But, I would never
> > tell _you_ that)
>
> Why not? You know it, I know it, so... Really, I need criticism: I'm
> known to be too lazy to correct flaws until someone tells them publicly.
>
> --
> jaime
Your pictures are so amazing. Far ahead of any other artists i know ...
so where do i start criticing?
Ok, your pictures look to good. Add a picture of Angela Merkel, this will ruin
any picture :-). No better not let them come!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/28/2016 11:56 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
I found this one from when Jaime was drunk-tracing...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160229135209-ot783-exlarge-169.jpg
(from
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/travel/south-africa-otter-trail/index.html )
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 2/28/2016 11:56 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> I found this one from when Jaime was drunk-tracing...
I've never traced while being drunk... while being stoned, yes, but I
quit smoking pot some years ago.
> http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160229135209-ot783-exlarge-169.jpg
> (from
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/travel/south-africa-otter-trail/index.html
> )
I was going to comment on the heightfield details before I saw from
your second link that it is a real landscape! :)
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-3-2016 13:03, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> I was going to comment on the heightfield details before I saw from
> your second link that it is a real landscape! :)
>
You have been ray-tracing too much when every landscape you see becomes
a heigh_field. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> A new entry for POV HOF!
> Hats off,
> Paolo
I doubt it. The HOF hasn't been updated in years. Last image was 2009?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
