The first one (non-parallel rays) looks much better. The reason for my opinion on
this is that even though they look non-parallel, they could, in fact, be parallel.
The camera angle might give the impression of non-parallel rays, such as are seen in
real life. Nice media :)

Bob Hughes wrote:

> Like many people I try these sky pictures off and on and with the recent ones
> being done I've tried again.  Top render was fine for the sky I thought but then
> I went and had to try and improve upon it and forgot to save the original script
> as it first was.  With luck I'll find the correct settings again I hope.
> There's not that much to it, only two patterns on a sphere based upon Chris
> Huff's scene.
> It also has non-parallel sunbeams, another reason for making changes; which is
> how I ended up with the bottom render.  I mucked it up pretty good I think, but
> hey, look at those 'parallel' beams thanks to MegaPov.  I couldn't get parallel
> sun-beams with a point light source the first time and wondered why the first
> picture didn't look right.  So the second render uses a spotlight (says in the
> doc it can be done with point lights too?).  Never mind the rainbow, it isn't in
> a realistic position, there for looks.
> The ground became a height field which helped it a lot, but the water and sky
> suffered.  I never get completely good renders done!
> It could be wetlands or river delta but I'd have to spend much more time on it,
> so later maybe.
> Thanks Lewis and Chris for motivating me to do something like this again anyhow.
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>  [Image]

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message