frozen wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Very promising first post.  Technically accomplished.  For me the main
>>stopping point is a relatively minor thing, the grass.  What you have
>>just doesn't correspond to anything familiar to me.  The rest is  quite
>>believable.
> 
> 
> Thanks you very much!
> 
> The following link shows grass, which is pretty close to the type of grass
> that I meant. I hope, it begins looking more familiar? ;-)
> http://www.kieserite.com/effects/bilder/Weide-Gras-1.jpg
> 
okay  but that reference doesn't really give a sense of the scale which 
is the basic problem for me.  Thing is, I can well imagine that 
somewhere, somehow, there is some botanical form which corresponds to 
your grass.  But I have a difficult time placing it in a garden setting 
like that.  For instance the fat, spiky appearance sort of reminds me of 
a dense type of flower you find on hardwood forest floors called dogwood 
or trillium.  Or I can think of different grasses that are fat and spiky 
like that, especially in the US SE like Florida, but the scale would be 
smaller by at least 1/2.  At the scale you show I would expect the grass 
to be thinner and a little 'softer" or bent over.

I really don't want to get anal about it.  It is just the part of the 
picture that stops me from projecting into the illusion.  May not be a 
problem for others.  But one observation you might take away from the 
conversation is to recognize that while your picture has an admirable 
degree of complexity for a raytracing, there still are only a small set 
of elements that comprise it.  So the believability of each element 
counts for a lot

Post a reply to this message