 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/13/2017 4:10 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
>
>> But if you use the Wayback machine it can be found here.
>>
https://web.archive.org/web/20090123034022/http://dryad.stanford.edu/download.php?os=windows
>>
>> There is a Mac version available.
>
> Thanks Stephen! :)
>
> And... "Click on the dice button to get a new tree that is like your current
> one but slightly different."
> Super useful.
>
>
>
Selecting a tree and moving the mouse over the RH window is super dooper. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2017 5:56, jhu wrote:
> Image colors look a little washed out and could use some saturation.
>
That is the atmospheric media.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-3-2017 15:21, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>>>> The vegetation was modelled with Dryad, a little free application from
>>>> stanford.edu
>>>> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/dryad-010908.html that seems
>>>> to have disappeared from the net.
>
> If it's at all possible, that would be a great application to share with folks,
> since vegetation is whole area of its own, that can be a HUGE time sink. Since
> it was being given away for free at the time , I don't know if you need any
> other permission from the author to share the version you have.
>
I had not thought about the Wayback Machine. Fortunately, I have Stephen
to take care of those details ;-)
>
>> I am always happy when people nitpick. I like to do it myself too with
>> others and believe it is to everybody's good :-)
>
> Indeed. Constructive nitpicking, like "This here has a problem, which can be
> fixed if you do X, Y, or Z...." helps people learn to look at their scenes with
> a more discerning and critical eye, and most importantly, LEARN how to avoid and
> fix those problems. This makes for a stronger raytracing community. :)
I totally agree. I guess that about 70% of my POV-Ray skills come from
the examples and help from others. And my learning curve is still quite
steep.
>
>>> * The tree trunks are too straight
> Maybe. They're alien trees. I'd perhaps say "they're all too uniform /
> similar."
Probably, those trees will remain straight, but there needs to be much
more variation in tree/bush types.
>
>>> * The trees have not enough color variations (how many different tree models?
>>> maybe changing some of them for a new one with slightly different color would
>>> solve this)
>
> Coding good looking variation is definitely a tremendous skill.
I have been lazy (like so often) and postponed that work to phase 2. ;-)
>
>
> Once again Thomas - great landscape, and a very nice atmosphere. I always
> enjoy looking at your scenes, and have something to learn, and a level of
> accomplishment to strive for in my own work. I really like the higher-contrast,
> crisper, clearer foreground to the right which really adds a sense of depth to
> the scene. Perhaps having some of that on the left might help the scene "pop"
> more...
>
Thank you very much indeed. :-)
The media at the left of the scene is a bit thicker than on the right.
Partly because the shore is a tiny bit farther away but mostly because
of the turbulence of the media, like mist shrouds thinning out or
thickening locally. It was important to me that at least some part of
the scene were crisper.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-3-2017 17:31, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/13/2017 4:10 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>>> But if you use the Wayback machine it can be found here.
>>>
https://web.archive.org/web/20090123034022/http://dryad.stanford.edu/download.php?os=windows
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a Mac version available.
>>
>> Thanks Stephen! :)
>>
>> And... "Click on the dice button to get a new tree that is like your
>> current
>> one but slightly different."
>> Super useful.
>>
>>
>>
> Selecting a tree and moving the mouse over the RH window is super
> dooper. :)
>
>
Dryad has all kinds of nice surprises and is innovative in several ways.
However, the trees can remain a bit 'primitive' and are better for
background work I think.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/14/2017 8:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-3-2017 17:31, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Selecting a tree and moving the mouse over the RH window is super
>> dooper. :)
>>
>>
>
> Dryad has all kinds of nice surprises and is innovative in several ways.
> However, the trees can remain a bit 'primitive' and are better for
> background work I think.
>
The leaves are certainly primitive. :-)
But for a background I can see it working, as in your image.
Talking of which, I really like it. But as usual I too find it a bit
washed out. I generally drop the gamma a bit to view it.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2017 9:19, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/14/2017 8:02 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-3-2017 17:31, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Selecting a tree and moving the mouse over the RH window is super
>>> dooper. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Dryad has all kinds of nice surprises and is innovative in several ways.
>> However, the trees can remain a bit 'primitive' and are better for
>> background work I think.
>>
>
> The leaves are certainly primitive. :-)
> But for a background I can see it working, as in your image.
> Talking of which, I really like it. But as usual I too find it a bit
> washed out. I generally drop the gamma a bit to view it.
>
It probably is what I prefer myself. ;-) Otherwise it is all gamma 1 and
srgb colours.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/14/2017 12:10 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 14-3-2017 9:19, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> The leaves are certainly primitive. :-)
>> But for a background I can see it working, as in your image.
>> Talking of which, I really like it. But as usual I too find it a bit
>> washed out. I generally drop the gamma a bit to view it.
>>
>
> It probably is what I prefer myself. ;-) Otherwise it is all gamma 1 and
> srgb colours.
>
Yes or your monitor's output Vs mine. I normally don't like images where
there is a lot of detail in the dark parts unlike actual paintings.
Where I do. :-¦
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2017 13:34, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/14/2017 12:10 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 14-3-2017 9:19, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The leaves are certainly primitive. :-)
>>> But for a background I can see it working, as in your image.
>>> Talking of which, I really like it. But as usual I too find it a bit
>>> washed out. I generally drop the gamma a bit to view it.
>>>
>>
>> It probably is what I prefer myself. ;-) Otherwise it is all gamma 1 and
>> srgb colours.
>>
>
> Yes or your monitor's output Vs mine. I normally don't like images where
> there is a lot of detail in the dark parts unlike actual paintings.
> Where I do. :-¦
>
My monitor is calibrated, to the best of my skills ;-)
Admittedly, those skills are so so...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/14/2017 1:00 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>
> My monitor is calibrated, to the best of my skills ;-)
Mine has different settings for different applications.
When I set it to sRGB all I can adjust is the brightness.
The usual gamma adjustment images look correct.
>
> Admittedly, those skills are so so...
I'm not sure about that. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
