 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"omniverse" <omn### [at] charter net> wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> > On 7/12/2017 8:36 AM, 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 ;-)
> > >
> >
> > That's quite a render and appreciated.
>
> I 2nd that. I remembered stacked planes for clouds was a speed-up over media,
> guess I'm wrong.
>
> > 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.
> I also see what looks like a guy in a hoody holding a briefcase, standing among
> the skeletons. Maybe not and just an illusion? ;)
>
> Bob
perhaps not a hoody. perhaps a tall pith helmet...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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? ;)
>>
>> Bob
>
> perhaps not a hoody. perhaps a tall pith helmet...
>
Exactly.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
Very nice! :)
I think that a tweak or two of the lighting / finish of your mesh mountain would
bring the bulk of that feature out enough for the highlights to not be as
disembodied / distracting.
The skeletons are a great feature - I suppose they are a mesh / 3D model...
Not that you really ought to, (just thinking out loud) but it would be
interesting to see a "diagram" of the scenes like this - perhaps from a
different perspective - with just plain pigment {Hue} texturing and very very
simple geometry. Maybe some thin cylinders to show the direction of the light
source[s].
Kind of like an instructional sketch that you might find in a computer graphics
textbook or the POV-Ray docs...
Another great scene from the Adventures of the Major :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/12/2017 12:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 12-7-2017 11:48, omniverse wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> 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.
> It is not a Poser prop but it is a mesh object.
>
That's good. Forget I mentioned it. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
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.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-7-2017 13:53, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> Very nice! :)
>
> I think that a tweak or two of the lighting / finish of your mesh mountain would
> bring the bulk of that feature out enough for the highlights to not be as
> disembodied / distracting.
Indeed. The whole point is to keep the cliff /behind/ the media but its
present geometry does not go well with the light direction. And its
geometry is not exactly what I intended either. So there is more work to do.
>
> The skeletons are a great feature - I suppose they are a mesh / 3D model...
Yes, Poser models.
>
> Not that you really ought to, (just thinking out loud) but it would be
> interesting to see a "diagram" of the scenes like this - perhaps from a
> different perspective - with just plain pigment {Hue} texturing and very very
> simple geometry. Maybe some thin cylinders to show the direction of the light
> source[s].
>
> Kind of like an instructional sketch that you might find in a computer graphics
> textbook or the POV-Ray docs...
That would be an interesting exercise. I shall think about it.
>
> Another great scene from the Adventures of the Major :)
>
Yes. It is high time I also model some other poses too. I have been a
bit lazy about him ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] aolcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
