|
 |
In my experience this is less of a problem. The trouble is if I do the comet
image there's a big chance a lot of people won't understand what they're
looking at, which means I have to work on things until they use recognisable
elements, like my ice material. I don't think ice would actually look like
that in space, I've totally cheated with the lighting angle and internal
colours, but because it looks like ice on earth your brain tells you it's
ice and then you can interpret the scene with that information. I'd need to
put equal effort into making a flame effect that looks like recognisable
fire but also looks like a "shooting star". Whereas with a volcano you can
immediately see what it is, so perversely the tiny details are a lot less
important, and I can get away with very stylised effects provided the
overall impression is a volcano.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:tu04t15s9f9ug6j649pkkp7ll5qf7qmct5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:27:06 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com>
> wrote:
>
>>I know what a volcano looks like but
>>what should meteors look like from above?
>
> Knowing what a volcano looks like will, IMO, make it harder to
> realize. Everyone else does too and realistic fumes are hard to do.
> Where as a space scene is only bound by your imagination. For these
> reasons I would like to see your volcano :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
