 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-3-2017 17:31, Stephen wrote:
> 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. :)
>
>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> 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
Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'stranger-moon-05-post-processing.png' (1339 KB)
Preview of image 'stranger-moon-05-post-processing.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-3-2017 20:29, jhu wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> 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
>
> Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
>
Lol! Which is not really what I personally like. Too garish to my taste,
but good try nonetheless. :-)
Wait for next version.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 14-3-2017 20:29, jhu wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Regardless, some post-processing can add to the aesthetic
> >
>
> Lol! Which is not really what I personally like. Too garish to my taste,
> but good try nonetheless. :-)
>
> Wait for next version.
>
> --
> Thomas
me neither, original output was more natural but I agree it did lack some
contrast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >
> > * isn't scale of the clouds too small? making them bigger would create larger
> > holes where the "moon" could be let visible and still get some occlusion from
> > the clouds, because as it is, the moon looks closer than the clouds.
> > *beaches are too vertical, ideally a small fringe of the terrain with lower
> > slope would make them less linear, but I guess it must be difficult depending on
> > how procedurally the height field was generated... If not possible then I would
> > try to make the sandy yellow line much thinner to make up for that.
>
> I was expecting this! ;-) The point is that those as /not/ clouds but a
> starscape, maybe somewhere closer to the galaxy's hub. Star clusters and
> groupings are supposed to represent this aspect. Of course, the
> image_map used of an Apophysis flame is not really star-like nor
> realistic but I liked this nonetheless for an alien sky, and why go all
> the realistic way after all?
>
> As far as clouds are concerned, there is a scattering media present
> which expresses the heat of this planet but no clouds are formed at this
> hour of the day.
>
> >
> > Great work and a hard subject to depict !
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Thomas
This is a good idea that was not yet readable: no one can honestly tell you yet
that they look like star fields rather than clouds, despite what is realistic or
not... Maybe some really brighter stars with streaks would help, ideally the
"foreground one" with asteroid belt would be even more brilliant since closer
and have more streaks... The problem you face is we're reading the picture from
what we know and the only such cloudy star field visible to the human eye is the
milky way. If it can be of some inspiration, the sky needs to be just dark
enough for it to appear.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
