clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> jhu schrieb:
> > Not very roomy, but cheap enough to maintain!
>
> Source code or it's a photograph! ;-)
>
> Amazing work. I'd add a bit more large-scale turbulences and offset to
> the wood grain though, so that it does /not/ coincide precisely with the
> shape of the hull. I also think it's a particularly unusual orientation
> of the wood grain, as it would be prone to cracking (though it might be
> feasible with the segmented configuration you used, which admittedly is
> visually very appealing with this shape).
>
> I'd also suggest to laquer the ships (transparent of course), or
> otherwise protect them against the water. As it is, the wood looks
> untreated to me, so I guess if it would see frequent use it might soon
> become wet and deform.
>
> I like your use of focal blur to give a sense of scale. Some people here
> will probably disagree, but I think it's just the right amount of blur
> for this purpose and scale.
>
> Is the rear boat sinking? Looks like its deck is partially submerged.
>
> And then there's still quite some edges left that ask to be "broken"
> (i.e. beveled or rounded with a small diameter).
>
> If you want to do it perfect, you may also want to model the holes in
> which the masts and stuff are mounted (you didn't just glue them to the
> surface, did you?).
>
> But even as it is now, I'd consider the image Hall-Of-Fame quality.
> Might make a great showcase scene for wood grain, focal blur, and water.
> How long did it take to render?
>
> As I mention this, I notice one issue that would make it unsuitable as a
> showcase scene: Some parts (especially the masts) seem to have a much
> finer grain than the hull; so that's more like an example of how /not/
> to do it ;-)

Thanks for the complements and suggestions. I'll see what I can do about those
issues. I think I'll also add a little flag pole and flag somewhere.

It took 60 hours to render at 1080p resolution (to fit my TV!).

Post a reply to this message