 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-7-2017 15:30, Stephen wrote:
> On 7/12/2017 12:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 12-7-2017 11:48, omniverse wrote:
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>> But what is that white cloud structure, just above the centre point of
>>>> the image?
>>>> It looks a bit like a Poser prop. ;)
>>>
>>> Asteroid or irregular satellite of the planet, I suppose. I had looked
>>> around
>>> the sky to piece it all together because I thought it was a ghostly
>>> figure at
>>> first.
>>
>> Well, that was one of my experiments in this scene: A giant, overhanging
>> cliff, maybe reaching up out of the atmosphere. Something like Mount
>> Lookitthat on the planet of the same name. I am not satisfied is the
>> least I can say.
>
> It is quite intriguing, though. And after a short while you notice
> patterns in the clouds. Like the eagle to the right at the top.
>
Yes indeed! I noticed that too.
>
>> It is not a Poser prop but it is a mesh object.
>>
>
> That's good. Forget I mentioned it. :)
>
No harm done. Nobody fell off (yet). ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-7-2017 21:10, omniverse wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 12-7-2017 13:10, green wrote:
>>> "omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>>>> I also see what looks like a guy in a hoody holding a briefcase, standing among
>>>> the skeletons. Maybe not and just an illusion? ;)
>>>>
>>> perhaps not a hoody. perhaps a tall pith helmet...
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Ah ha! I was convincing myself it was pareidolia, seeing something recognizable
> in random shapes.
The figure is indeed at the limit of visibility.
> And I was sure that enormous cliff in the distance was up in space, although I
> didn't think so until I looked over the whole thing in the sky. It was almost
> like a far away mountain before that, but it was the vast size and distance
> perception along with the vertical nature that changed my mind.
Yes. I had the vague notion to have that landscape to look at, and then
suddenly to discover there was something gigantic in the background,
hardly seen but instantly overwhelming. It is not yet there imo.
>
> I like Bald Eagle's idea about image construct. I've rendered scenes from
> another view anyway, to get a better look at how parts are put together, and it
> can appear like a tabletop model of a scene.
>
It certainly is an idea I want to pursue further.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12.07.2017 03:36, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is more of a conceptual image to me than anything else. I wanted -
> among other things - to explore 3dclouds.inc.
>
> It may surprise you to read that the lower half of the image rendered in
> about one hour while the upper half took about... 48 hours, or more as I
> rendered that part in blocks using Continue. Despite the fact that the
> clouds and the (media) atmosphere do not mix: they are separate objects.
> /That/ would have been even more speed killing. Rendered separately
> (clouds or media) the image renders within a couple of hours.
>
> I guess that the cloud build-up (here 50 planes) is the basic culprit.
>
> Nonetheless, you may or may not appreciate the scene ;-)
>
Looks great! Still not fully realistic, but couldn't say what's causing
that. But I love it already as it is!
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avg.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> This is more of a conceptual image to me than anything else. I wanted -
> among other things - to explore 3dclouds.inc.
>
> It may surprise you to read that the lower half of the image rendered in
> about one hour while the upper half took about... 48 hours, or more as I
> rendered that part in blocks using Continue. Despite the fact that the
> clouds and the (media) atmosphere do not mix: they are separate objects.
> /That/ would have been even more speed killing. Rendered separately
> (clouds or media) the image renders within a couple of hours.
>
> I guess that the cloud build-up (here 50 planes) is the basic culprit.
>
> Nonetheless, you may or may not appreciate the scene ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas
I really like this image. I have never been able to get cloud layering to work
to my satisfaction, but these look really good. (And yes, I have noticed a
significant hit on render time when using them. I had one image with 90 layers
and had to do exactly what you have done here, render in blocks. Even then I
didn't like the result.)
I also like the sense of 'what is that' presented by the object between the moon
and the hills. (And I like the moon, too).
Cheers,
Simon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
