I have been working on a macro that creates a tree.  My goal is
photo-realism, so I appreciate your comments and suggestions.  The tree is
modeled entirely in POV using recursive macros. I've attached a few of the
recent results.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tree13-10-24s.jpg' (133 KB)

Preview of image 'tree13-10-24s.jpg'

....

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tree v13-ds.jpg' (71 KB)

Preview of image 'tree v13-ds.jpg'

The fading of the bark adds a lot. The leaves look too flat to me, but that
is only on a close examination. The same with the bark on the trunk - it is
a little flat. Still, on first glance it was much better than any other
recursive tree I've ever seen. Same on the second and third look, too. Nice
work.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

"Neddahk" <Ned### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I have been working on a macro that creates a tree.  My goal is
> photo-realism, so I appreciate your comments and suggestions.  The tree is
> modeled entirely in POV using recursive macros. I've attached a few of the
> recent results.

Wow, they're very good. I like how so many POV-artists do it themselves,
even when similar things have already been developed, because there are
always advantages starting fresh. It's great to have so many technically
savvy artists!

Hmm, photo-realism from what distance? Up close can be a demading challenge
indeed.

The falling leaves in both images are an especially nice touch. The
large-trunk brown bark texture is very real-looking to me, and the leaves
are attached to the branches. The overall trunk looks realistically curved
and curled in both images.

Criticism: (w/grain of salt, please)
The last level of twiggy recursion isn't quite fine enough, to my eye; it
seems like it should look busier and noisier around the tree margins. The
light branch and twig texture seems a little too bare, but that may be
realistic. The texture transition doesn't show peeling-up bark like a
sycamore or such tree has.

Overall, though, my only major criticism is that the branch and twig
sections are too straight. Add more small-scale wiggles and irregularity if
you can.

Oh, also- not that it affects the tree realism- but the ground doesn't show
any shadow that I can see. ??

Very good job. Keep it up!

-Stefan Sittler

Post a reply to this message

>The tree is
>modeled entirely in POV using recursive macros. I've attached a few of the
>recent results.

Very impressive.  I've started on a project such as this a few times, but I always get
a headache
from the complexity and stop.

I'd love to see the method to your madness.  Are you planning to post the code?


Kyle

Post a reply to this message

Ooh - lovely.

How long did it take to parse and render? And what are your machines specs? 
And... are you going to post the code?


-- 
-Nekar Xenos
"The truth is out there"

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for all your generous input!  I'd like to implement some of the
changes you suggested and get my code cleaned up before I post it.

"Nekar" <ger### [at] rpmmagcoza> wrote:
> Ooh - lovely.
>
> How long did it take to parse and render? And what are your machines specs?
> And... are you going to post the code?

I render on a 2 Ghz PC; to get a tree with decent enough complexity it
usually takes about 2-3 minutes to parse and then renders at around 300 -
500 pixels per second.

(btw, I didn't actually bother to make an object for the ground other than
the leaves, so there's no shadow.)

Post a reply to this message

"Neddahk" <Ned### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I have been working on a macro that creates a tree.  My goal is
> photo-realism, so I appreciate your comments and suggestions.  The tree is
> modeled entirely in POV using recursive macros. I've attached a few of the
> recent results.

VERY impressive!  And very timely and inspiring (for me):  I'm currently
working on a similar idea, using isosurfaces...to get real bark detail
mostly,  but also to "bend" the trunk and make it "bumpy", and to create a
lower trunk shape that mimics the way the roots spread out.  Will post an
example soon.

Haven't yet thought about branches--which your macros do a *beautiful* job
with. Congratulations on your excellent code design! Like others, I would
very much like to see it. Please post when ready.  :-)

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
news:web.454031c1de2c77c4870dc4da0@news.povray.org...
>
> VERY impressive!  And very timely and inspiring (for me):  I'm currently
> working on a similar idea, using isosurfaces...to get real bark detail
> mostly,  but also to "bend" the trunk and make it "bumpy", and to create a
> lower trunk shape that mimics the way the roots spread out.  Will post an
> example soon.
>
I am curious about this: Isn't your render time very slow for an isosurface 
tree? And what about planting a forest with them?

> Haven't yet thought about branches--which your macros do a *beautiful* job
> with. Congratulations on your excellent code design! Like others, I would
> very much like to see it. Please post when ready.  :-)
>
I agree!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 26/10/2006 03:22:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
> news:web.454031c1de2c77c4870dc4da0@news.povray.org...
>> VERY impressive!  And very timely and inspiring (for me):  I'm currently
>> working on a similar idea, using isosurfaces...to get real bark detail
>> mostly,  but also to "bend" the trunk and make it "bumpy", and to create a
>> lower trunk shape that mimics the way the roots spread out.  Will post an
>> example soon.

> I am curious about this: Isn't your render time very slow for an isosurface 
> tree? And what about planting a forest with them?

>> Haven't yet thought about branches--which your macros do a *beautiful* job
>> with. Congratulations on your excellent code design! Like others, I would
>> very much like to see it. Please post when ready.  :-)

> I agree!!

> Thomas 


When you have very detailled trees, you only use 1 or 2, maybe 3. For the 
background trees, it's usualy beter to use mesh trees.
Not all isosurfaces are very slow. It depend on it's complexity and gradiant.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?

Post a reply to this message