> I am curious about any comments of course!

I like where the image is going. I'd look into the colors, it's all very
washed out. Might be the ground-fog... The blue of the sky, the green on the
hills, they could be more saturated.

And how is the image lit, only one lightsources (which obviously isn't the
sun with the flare, wrong shadows for that)? The shadows look very uniform,
so you might either want to add some handplaced fill-lights to simulate
diffuse light (e.g. a reddish lightsource near the cliff, so that objects in
front of it receive reflected light from it), or use radiosity or such. I
generally set ambient to 0 and play with fill-lights & radiosity.

As for that flare, I particularly don't like that it has four spikes. Is it
supposed to be a lense-flare, or just a "too bright to see" spot? In any
case I think the flare should be white, but maybe with a fade to yellow.
When things get too bright, you often just see white.

And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
isosurface... Isn't it possible to render a grayscale map from above and use
a heightfield? With various resolutions for foreground and background. The
hills don't have overhangs or such, so I don't think you really need the
slow isosurface there.

Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43e348c8@news.povray.org...
> A new version of the Alien Cliff.
> Added have been: cloud, waterfall, "birds".
> This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
> especially for the lower half of the image.
>
> I am curious about any comments of course!
>
> Thomas
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message