 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see you've made everyone's scowl more intense in the update :)
Interesting to look at the vegetation - both very realistic, but I actually
think I prefer the original in this regard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> It is an old memory from my own childhood in fact.
And then, after watching Thomas and the gang at play, Jules Verne used the event
as the inspiration to write _20,000 Leagues Under The Sea_ - in 1870.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-3-2018 23:25, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>> It is an old memory from my own childhood in fact.
>
> And then, after watching Thomas and the gang at play, Jules Verne used the event
> as the inspiration to write _20,000 Leagues Under The Sea_ - in 1870.
>
Entirely correct! And published in.... exactly. ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-3-2018 16:12, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Well done Thomas,
Thanks you indeed Norbert.
>
> but by changing the camera point of view, most of the nice birds disappeared...
> What I want to know is how you did your grass and plants - really nice.
>
The fault is DrJohn's macro but I deemed the loss minor to the gain of a
more realistic scene. I could change the flight of the birds of course.
Incidentally, those were built in Moray using blobs.
The plants are meshes I converted from Poser while the flowers were
provided by PlantStudio.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-3-2018 19:58, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I see you've made everyone's scowl more intense in the update :)
The scowl was already there in the original and I don't like it. I can
do better. Probably will be smoothed out in the next version
>
> Interesting to look at the vegetation - both very realistic, but I actually
> think I prefer the original in this regard.
>
Somehow I have to agree with you. Maybe something I can mend too...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 3/20/2018 um 8:43 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>
Sorry, but overall I do prefer the original.
The new version seems quite over-saturated, especially the vegetation,
the bricks and the wheel.
While the new camera view is nice it has the unfortunate side effect
that two birds of the flock are very close to the top border and this
hurts the composition.
And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management
enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while,
only IE and Edge don't - but who uses them anyway?
Every contemporary mid-range monitor has a wider color gamut than sRGB,
the one I use even wider than Adobe RGB - and I can assure you, the
difference is NOT subtle.
When I want to make sure to view an image as intended I have to do a few
additional steps and as I'm lazy I usually don't care. As color
management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the
image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not
use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without
profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device
profile.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/03/2018 10:52, Ive wrote:
>
> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
How do I do that? Does it apply to PovRay generated png's?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-3-2018 11:52, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/20/2018 um 8:43 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to
>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this
>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to
>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using
>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>
>
> Sorry, but overall I do prefer the original.
> The new version seems quite over-saturated, especially the vegetation,
> the bricks and the wheel.
I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks.
However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
> While the new camera view is nice it has the unfortunate side effect
> that two birds of the flock are very close to the top border and this
> hurts the composition.
Yes. You are perfectly right. Another reason to revisit the birds.
>
> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile.
> Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management
> enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while,
> only IE and Edge don't - but who uses them anyway?
> Every contemporary mid-range monitor has a wider color gamut than sRGB,
> the one I use even wider than Adobe RGB - and I can assure you, the
> difference is NOT subtle.
> When I want to make sure to view an image as intended I have to do a few
> additional steps and as I'm lazy I usually don't care. As color
> management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the
> image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not
> use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without
> profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device
> profile.
>
Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/20/2018 03:43 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to
> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this lately
> with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to change
> some elements but the comparison over ten years of using POV-Ray are
> notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
It looks better in most respects. I see 3 areas that seem
over-corrected, though:
The corrosion on the plaque is overdone. It's not that it's
unrealistic, but that the text is mostly illegible.
The vegetation, while in isolation it looks better than the original, is
distracting from the composition (for that very reason).
The new skin tones look overly saturated, although they are better than
in the original.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 3/21/2018 um 13:11 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks.
> However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?
>
Gamma! In the ancient time of MegaPOV and its unawareness of gamma
handling you as the user had to tweak scene colors and lighting to
compensate for the resulting inconsistency. Now with proper gamma
handling but some of these *tweaks* making it over results in
over-saturation and slightly hue shifts - as to be expected.
> It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.
>
Yes, I agree - saturation is certainly also a matter of taste -
personally I can live with under-saturation better than with
over-saturation.
>
> Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...
>
Contemporary versions of Photoshop and Lightroom do this auto-magical,
older version if you told them to do so and I'm under the assumption
this is also true for other software like Gimp or Paintshop. I do not
use the latter so maybe I'm wrong?
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
