Hello again everyone.

Here's the most recent version of the planetoid. It's a bit big (sorry!) but
it needs to be really because of the detail.

I'm pretty happy with the colouring now, although I think I need to crank
the radiosity up a little bit. I'm aware of my cock-up on the lower
balconies (e.g., top-left, front-right); the matter has now been resolved.
I'm also quite satisfied with the boulder - looks a lot more cliff-like
now.

I have two issues to ponder:
Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or
not? Secondly, there is still a slight problem with the overall scale. My
thought is that the windows could be slightly smaller and the vegetation
(very) slightly larger... comments?

Still to do: people. Actually, they're done now. But it took over 3 days to
render this pic so they're not in it yet.
Still to do: something subtle in the background. I don't know what yet.

Some stats:
41,179 frame level objects.
Peak memory: 123,899,186 bytes.
Time for parse: 40 seconds.
Time for trace: 79 hours 55 minutes 50 seconds.

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'planetoidwip3.jpg' (262 KB)

Preview of image 'planetoidwip3.jpg'

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Hello again everyone.
> 
> Here's the most recent version of the planetoid. It's a bit big (sorry!)
> but it needs to be really because of the detail.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with the colouring now, although I think I need to crank
> the radiosity up a little bit. I'm aware of my cock-up on the lower
> balconies (e.g., top-left, front-right); the matter has now been resolved.
> I'm also quite satisfied with the boulder - looks a lot more cliff-like
> now.
> 

I did like the gray-ish look of the rock better ;)

> I have two issues to ponder:
> Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or
> not? 

Why would you want to?

> Secondly, there is still a slight problem with the overall scale. My 
> thought is that the windows could be slightly smaller and the vegetation
> (very) slightly larger... comments?

You could make the vegetation a tad larger and only have it along the walls,
so as to leave the rest of the rock barren.


> 
> Still to do: people. Actually, they're done now. But it took over 3 days
> to render this pic so they're not in it yet.
> Still to do: something subtle in the background. I don't know what yet.
> 

A tough call because it shouldn't draw the attention away from the rock.
Maybe a very sparsely populated starry sky

> Some stats:
> 41,179 frame level objects.
> Peak memory: 123,899,186 bytes.
> Time for parse: 40 seconds.
> Time for trace: 79 hours 55 minutes 50 seconds.

Patience is a virtue :)


Overall I think it looks very very good

> 
> Bill

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.42c12af2f37310df731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Hello again everyone.
>
> I have two issues to ponder:
> Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or
> not?
Depends if you want to follow the original idea of Escher through: the two
worlds do not intersect/interact. However, imho, I think this does not
necessarily apply here.

Secondly, there is still a slight problem with the overall scale. My
> thought is that the windows could be slightly smaller and the vegetation
> (very) slightly larger... comments?
hmm... perhaps a tiny bit, yes. But not too much!
>
> Still to do: something subtle in the background. I don't know what yet.
Something not distracting. Maybe clouds...

Good work!! I love the rock!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or not?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but maybe you need a better transition
between the rock and the building - a little darker at the bottom perhaps,
and a little denser vegetation there, too.

And maybe the building is too gray, now. In a previous version it was
'overexposed', so this is better, but maybe it's the light that is too
uniform here.

Great project!

H

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Hello again everyone.
Hi!

> I'm pretty happy with the colouring now, although I think I need to crank
> the radiosity up a little bit.
I second. I love the boulder's reddish hue. The whole scene probably needs a
brighter lighting, it is slightly dim as it is.

> I have two issues to ponder:
> Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or
> not?
Judging from what i see now, i'd say "yes". I think it would really add some
mystery to the scene. As i have written before, now it looks like a
building on a rock. There is a distinct hierarchy. With holes in the
boulder, it'd be more of a coexistence.

> Secondly, there is still a slight problem with the overall scale.
Or is there? I think the proportions are fairly good already.

> My thought is that the windows could be slightly smaller
I believe the windows are presently consistent with the height between
floors.
Making them smaller would make the buildings appear hostile, thus lacking
contrast with the boulder.

> and the vegetation (very) slightly larger...
I agree that you could give it a try.

I really love this WIP and the way it's turning out. One tiny nitpick
though... but maybe i already told you about that one. I think the
frontmost edge of the boulder is too straight-in-the-middle. Maybe a slight
rotation of the whole thing around the y-axis to bring the left building
forward, and/or a slight rotation around the z-axis to break the vertical
edge.

JYR

Post a reply to this message

Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:

> I did like the gray-ish look of the rock better ;)
I thought some contrast between the two tetrahedra was needed. I might try
an "inverse" version with a gray/white rock and a redbrick building to see
which is  better... if my CPU can shoulder the burden!

> > Still to do: something subtle in the background. I don't know what yet.
>
> A tough call because it shouldn't draw the attention away from the rock.
> Maybe a very sparsely populated starry sky
Several people have suggested a starfield... I personally favour a bright
sky blue. Again, I may have to produce several versions to see which works
best... A dusky starfield with no direct light source but the sky (or maybe
moonlight) could look *really* good.

> > Time for trace: 79 hours 55 minutes 50 seconds.
> Patience is a virtue :)
Not really. I left it on my office machine over the weekend!

> Overall I think it looks very very good
Thanks!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.42c286fd522f1a87731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Several people have suggested a starfield... I personally favour a bright
> sky blue. Again, I may have to produce several versions to see which works
> best... A dusky starfield with no direct light source but the sky (or
maybe
> moonlight) could look *really* good.
>

I would prefer a blue sky with clouds, but real hazy.... [2 cts worth]

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> > I'm pretty happy with the colouring now, although I think I need to crank
> > the radiosity up a little bit.
> I second. I love the boulder's reddish hue. The whole scene probably needs a
> brighter lighting, it is slightly dim as it is.
Yes. I'll rack up the diffuse a little and make the light source a bit
brighter.

> > I have two issues to ponder:
> > Firstly, do I put holes in the rock where the buildings intersect it? Or
> > not?
> Judging from what i see now, i'd say "yes". I think it would really add some
> mystery to the scene. As i have written before, now it looks like a
> building on a rock. There is a distinct hierarchy. With holes in the
> boulder, it'd be more of a coexistence.
That's the way I'm leaning. I'll at least do some tests to see if it looks
good or not.

> > My thought is that the windows could be slightly smaller
> I believe the windows are presently consistent with the height between
> floors.
> Making them smaller would make the buildings appear hostile, thus lacking
> contrast with the boulder.
I just feel that the boulder looks like it's about half a mile wide (ish)
but the building is only a couple of hundred metres wide. When compared to
the people (which I haven't posted here yet), the windows appear to be over
6ft tall. I think making them a little smaller would help with the scale a
lot. Anyway, we shall see!

> I really love this WIP and the way it's turning out.
Thanks! I'm having great fun with it. I hadn't done any serious POV-ing for
years until this, so it's great to get back into it. I'm also giving this
work a lot more attention than I have with previous scenes - I think the
feedback from the community is artistically very helpful. Even if you
doesn't necessarily incorporate many ideas, it makes you look at your scene
in a much more critical light.

And the sheer quality of the posting here makes me try harder, too!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> I'm also quite satisfied with the boulder - looks a lot more cliff-like
> now.
Yes, the rock looks great now.

One thing about the camera: now we can't see the end of the bottom flag 
pole, so we don't know if there's a flag there or not. Unless that's on 
purpose, I would move the look_at point down a bit.

/ martin

Post a reply to this message