 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I always find making a good looking outdoor image difficult, especially when
beginning. Often it's fairly discouraging, and I just give up. For this example,
I saw this neat looking grassy valley which some trees that's somewhat foggy.
Here's the best I could do after several iterations. Additionally, it took 12GiB
of memory and 45 minutes to render. Fortunately my computer has plenty of RAM.
Pretty awful, eh?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'hills_04.jpg' (430 KB)
Preview of image 'hills_04.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
memory and took 12.75 hours.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'hills_08.jpg' (594 KB)
Preview of image 'hills_08.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-12-2013 8:44, jhu wrote:
> I always find making a good looking outdoor image difficult, especially when
> beginning. Often it's fairly discouraging, and I just give up. For this example,
> I saw this neat looking grassy valley which some trees that's somewhat foggy.
> Here's the best I could do after several iterations. Additionally, it took 12GiB
> of memory and 45 minutes to render. Fortunately my computer has plenty of RAM.
> Pretty awful, eh?
>
It is looking good though. I suppose it is mainly the grass that weights
down the memory? I think that in your image it also accounts for a
difficulty in judging the distances: the landscape seems smaller than it
should be, almost like a miniature. I often do two things in landscapes:
(1) I only plant 'grass' in the front half of the scene and use an
adequate texture for the background; alternatively, using Rune's grass
macro which is very fast and memory sober. (2) For simulating greater
distances, I scale the grass (and trees) gradually down with distance
from the camera. This optical illusion results in the perception of a
larger/wider landscape. Inversely, in some cases, it might be
interesting to scale up with distance, but that is another matter.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-12-2013 8:58, jhu wrote:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
>
Oh, I do like this one even more. Again, see if you can use also here my
comments on the first image.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/23/2013 01:58 AM, jhu wrote:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
>
The first one looks like a novice has run into a few interesting macros
creating a plastic looking hillside.
This one looks like a real life image. And if that's your backyard, I
don't want to mow your grass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ger Remmers <No.### [at] Thank Youcomorgnet> wrote:
> On 12/23/2013 01:58 AM, jhu wrote:
> > So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> > instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> > scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> > fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> > memory and took 12.75 hours.
> >
> The first one looks like a novice has run into a few interesting macros
> creating a plastic looking hillside.
> This one looks like a real life image. And if that's your backyard, I
> don't want to mow your grass.
We pay people to mow the grass, which would otherwise pose a fire hazard. As you
would expect, fire insurance is rather high here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.12.2013 08:58, schrieb jhu:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
WOW.........!!!
It`s just wonderful.Your grass is fascinating..the color, the light.
Must be wonderful to live there. It`s just the contrary to my home.
Absolutely my style......
Andrea
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Friedrich_Lohm=FCller?= <Fri### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Am 23.12.2013 08:58, schrieb jhu:
> > So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> > instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> > scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> > fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> > memory and took 12.75 hours.
> WOW.........!!!
> It`s just wonderful.Your grass is fascinating..the color, the light.
> Must be wonderful to live there. It`s just the contrary to my home.
> Absolutely my style......
> Andrea
Thanks! It's nice here. There are some issues though. For example we're on a
shared well that contains 25 ppb arsenic, which is below the old state standard
of 50 ppb. But it's now above the new state standard of 10 ppb. OTOH, there's no
evidence for health effects below 100 ppb. We also sometimes run out of water if
people forget to turn off their watering systems (ours have been off since
summer, so most of our non-succulents are dead). But, it's still better than
being plugged into the local water system. I hear my colleagues are paying
$500+/month to the water company! Absolutely ridiculous!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I often do two things in landscapes:
> (1) I only plant 'grass' in the front half of the scene and use an
> adequate texture for the background; alternatively, using Rune's grass
> macro which is very fast and memory sober. (2) For simulating greater
> distances, I scale the grass (and trees) gradually down with distance
> from the camera. This optical illusion results in the perception of a
> larger/wider landscape.
You... you cheater! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-12-2013 23:27, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> You... you cheater! ;-)
LOL
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
