 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After so many of you have tried randomized landscape i of course also
had to try some improvements - here are a few test renders. In contrast
to most of the other tests i have seen (which really look good BTW) i
have made more closeup looks this time which poses additional problems
(at low sun angles i regularly get completely shadowed images for example).
The difficulty of a truely random system (i.e. where you really render
the image defined by a random number and not select one of the stream
that looks best) is to restrict the parameter ranges to regions
resulting in interesting images and at the same time not make all
renders look the same.
Since this work seems rather boring to me i got the idea that one could
have the computer automatically do this using standard optimization
methods. There are mainly two problems about this: 1) you need a lot of
tests to find 'interesting regions in parameter space', especially in
high dimensional problems like this (i currently have about 100
parameters). 2) you have to measure the 'quality' of the resulting image
somehow, preferably automatically of course which is quite impossible.
So my idea is to render a set of images (maybe 10-20, something like a
reasonable population size for an evolution strategy) in small size
every week and have a public voting on them and use this vote for the
ranking. Then maybe render the highest rated image in larger, generate
the next step population and start again.
I have not yet worked this out compeletely but it could be an
interesting thing to try out.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lotw-t1.jpg' (92 KB)
Download 'lotw-t2.jpg' (94 KB)
Download 'lotw-t3.jpg' (78 KB)
Download 'lotw-t4.jpg' (89 KB)
Preview of image 'lotw-t1.jpg'
Preview of image 'lotw-t2.jpg'
Preview of image 'lotw-t3.jpg'
Preview of image 'lotw-t4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And the final render should be done with focal blur. That way people will
really wonder where you took that photograph!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:40e0a904@news.povray.org...
> And the final render should be done with focal blur. That way people will
> really wonder where you took that photograph!
Actually the beat landscape photographs are usually made with large format
cameras which are capable of altering the alignment of the plane of focus.
This means that in that kind of landscape photos there is usually no focal
blur at all and they are mostly 100% "sharp".
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> have made more closeup looks this time which poses additional problems
> (at low sun angles i regularly get completely shadowed images for example).
I tried also low camera arrangements, but it requires a detail wich
exceeds the limits of my patience. So now I admire even more your
landscapes.
> So my idea is to render a set of images (maybe 10-20, something like a
> reasonable population size for an evolution strategy) in small size
> every week and have a public voting on them and use this vote for the
> ranking. Then maybe render the highest rated image in larger, generate
> the next step population and start again.
Wow, this is a serious project. I don't know if it will give better
results than tedious random trial&error, but sounds very interesting to
try if you have the time.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> I tried also low camera arrangements, but it requires a detail wich
> exceeds the limits of my patience. So now I admire even more your
> landscapes.
Actually the foreground is not the slowest usually, in the scenes with
two terrain parts (first, third and fourth) it is usually the transit
between foreground and background.
>> So my idea is to render a set of images (maybe 10-20, something like a
>> reasonable population size for an evolution strategy) in small size
>> every week and have a public voting on them and use this vote for the
>> ranking. Then maybe render the highest rated image in larger,
>> generate the next step population and start again.
>
>
> Wow, this is a serious project. I don't know if it will give better
> results than tedious random trial&error, but sounds very interesting to
> try if you have the time.
I'd say never underestimate the efficiency of manual tweaks, even if you
have the impression it is mostly trial and error the intuitive ability
to find the 'right screws' to adjust it usually quite good.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> After so many of you have tried randomized landscape i of course also
> had to try some improvements - here are a few test renders. In contrast
> to most of the other tests i have seen (which really look good BTW) i
> have made more closeup looks this time which poses additional problems
> (at low sun angles i regularly get completely shadowed images for example).
>
> The difficulty of a truely random system (i.e. where you really render
> the image defined by a random number and not select one of the stream
> that looks best) is to restrict the parameter ranges to regions
> resulting in interesting images and at the same time not make all
> renders look the same.
>
> Since this work seems rather boring to me i got the idea that one could
> have the computer automatically do this using standard optimization
> methods. There are mainly two problems about this: 1) you need a lot of
> tests to find 'interesting regions in parameter space', especially in
> high dimensional problems like this (i currently have about 100
> parameters). 2) you have to measure the 'quality' of the resulting image
> somehow, preferably automatically of course which is quite impossible.
>
> So my idea is to render a set of images (maybe 10-20, something like a
> reasonable population size for an evolution strategy) in small size
> every week and have a public voting on them and use this vote for the
> ranking. Then maybe render the highest rated image in larger, generate
> the next step population and start again.
>
> I have not yet worked this out compeletely but it could be an
> interesting thing to try out.
>
> Christoph
These are great images!
And the idea is interesting, I would participate to the voting.
Sebastian H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
de news: 40e12740$1@news.povray.org...
>
> news:40e0a904@news.povray.org...
> > And the final render should be done with focal blur. That way people
will
> > really wonder where you took that photograph!
>
> Actually the beat landscape photographs are usually made with large format
> cameras which are capable of altering the alignment of the plane of focus.
> This means that in that kind of landscape photos there is usually no focal
> blur at all and they are mostly 100% "sharp".
>
And in addition, openair light generally allows small lense aperture and
great depth of field.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Severi Salminen wrote:
> ...the beat...
...the best...
Severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> After so many of you have tried randomized landscape i of course also
> had to try some improvements -
Hail to the King, baby!
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Severi Salminen nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 29/06/2004 04:26... :
>news:40e0a904@news.povray.org...
>
>
>>And the final render should be done with focal blur. That way people will
>>really wonder where you took that photograph!
>>
>>
>
>Actually the beat landscape photographs are usually made with large format
>cameras which are capable of altering the alignment of the plane of focus.
>This means that in that kind of landscape photos there is usually no focal
>blur at all and they are mostly 100% "sharp".
>
>Severi
>
>
>
I have some sceneries photographs that don't show any blur, from the
delicate flowers in the close foreground to the background mountains, on
a very clear day with almost no haze.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
