"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> schreef in
bericht news:43e34ca6$1@news.povray.org...
> > 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.
>
The washed-out look comes mainly from the ground fog. I am not too
displeased with that as it is intentional for the landscape. The cliff for
instance is much sharper / neater than the landscape under some kind of
tropical blanket. But everything can certainly be tweaked more indeed!

> 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.
>
There are three light sources in total: The main sun (outside the view)
generating the shadows; The yellow flare (dimmer) that does not seem to
produce shadows; a fill-in, shadowless light at the spot of the camera, with
a distance fade. Ambient is 0 in the whole scene. Radiosity would be the
next logical step here anyway.

> 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.
>
Hmm, yes, I know what you mean. I have been hesitating between a lens flare
or a very bright spot. In fact, the second should be it. I have to look into
this...

> 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.
>
Well, my system is old (win ME; about 6 years old; P3; 1G). I think it is
mainly the plants that slow down the render process, although the landscape
isosurface is slower indeed. But I don't know. I am a bit surprised because
with some 37000 objects, no media, no radiosity, it should be faster... I
shall certainly try the grey scale map as an alternative!

> Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...
>
Excellent Tim! You comments make good sense!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message