Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> OK, maybe I should start picking on the "unrealistic" parts of the images
> your scene generates: I think the general landscape looks really good and
> sufficiently detailed (currently rendering one at 3600*2400 on my system at
> work), but the clouds suffer from being colored to heavily when compared to
> a "real" photograph.  Just compare the cloud colors with those used in your
> scene with real clouds (taken both at about 14:00 a few days prior to summer
> solstice at about 48 degrees latitude) to your scene's clouds* -
> <http://mac.povray.org/new/clouds.jpg>.

   Yes, you are right about the clouds. I think it's due to my cheap sun 
model based on altitude only, wich gives too warm colors (I have to 
revise it). For the moment. you can correct it somehow by changing the 
white point of the color system to a lower temperature.

   I added also a parameter to control clouds brightness, as increassing 
it also helps a bit to get more white clouds.

> As you can see, the bottom colors of the clouds are far to heavy in
> particular for the given amount of sunlight.  Also, the atmosphere is a bit
> too dense (and too dark at the horizon) for a good weather mountain day.  

   The "atmosphere" density depends on the turbidity of the skilight 
model, but is also controlable with the Haze_Distance parameter.

> * The bottom one.  Note that all three image slices had previously been
> color corrected on their own using the Photoshop "auto color" function,
> which actually made the colors of your scene much more realistic, too :-)

   Yes, but it doesn't works always. Sometimes it gives wierd colors, 
other it darkens the image too much, at least with Gimp auto-levels.

   Thanks for the comments!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message