What I meant by using Photoshop, was not post processing to add waves along
the shores via Photoshop, but to use it to create the a bump_map to put as a
texture for the sea.

I did use post-processing for the lens-flare and increase the contrast.





> Bob Hughes wrote:
> >
> > I meant to say, afterthought actually, that using a post-process, like
> > digitally painting a shoreline, isn't exactly treason you all know I
> > hope. I myself have done touch-ups now and then, however usually on
> > scales of a mere dozens of pixels. All out painting onto a render isn't
> > going to break a law anyway, except maybe the law of art ;] since I
> > realize many of us 3D modeller/raytracer/renderer people can be clumsy
> > oafs with a paintbrush. Nothing personal, just summing up what I've
> > heard people say about themselves.
>
>   Real pov snobs would never admit to touching up one of their images.
> It just isn't someting you say in public without risking rejection by
> ones peers. That is unless of course the effect you produce is so
> completely astonishing that they can overlook it to find out how you
> accomplished it.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Fabien HENON wrote:
> 
> What I meant by using Photoshop, was not post processing to add waves along
> the shores via Photoshop, but to use it to create the a bump_map to put as a
> texture for the sea.
> 
> I did use post-processing for the lens-flare and increase the contrast.
> 


That comment was not really for you. I was pestering Bob a little bit.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I imagine the clouds at the left should look a bit brighter. Perhaps you
should decrease extinction a bit (supposedly not realistic, but I have
noticed that when the media represents particles with a high albedo, the
default extincion looks too dark).

Margus

Fabien HENON wrote in message <36F39875.65C694FF@club-internet.fr>...
>This picture took my K6-200 about 50 hours to render. The reason for
>such a long time is the media feature to model the clouds. I'll buy a
>Cray next time !!!
>The first quarter of this image was rendered using Pov for Dos 3.1a.
>The last three-quarters were rendered using Mark Gordon's 'still
>unofficial' release of POVLINUX.
>I was afraid I might get a different rendering, but no.
>By the way, any news of a new official release soon Mark? (if you read
>this).
>
>Once again, thanks to the POV-TEAM and the programmers around the world
>who developped for or around this great renderer.
>

>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote in message <36f3f118.0@news.povray.org>...
>Inspiring! I would really like to see the media code.
>
>GrimDude
>vos### [at] arkansasnet
>
>

[Sigh!]

Post a reply to this message

Yes the darkish clouds on the left gave me some headache. I did not know how
to solve that problem
As you suggested, I tried to lower the extinction value form 1.0 to 0.2 but
ALL the clouds became too white --> I had to lower the RGB value of the
scattering  --> it boiled down to the same.
If you have any other tip, they are welcome.






> I imagine the clouds at the left should look a bit brighter. Perhaps you
> should decrease extinction a bit (supposedly not realistic, but I have
> noticed that when the media represents particles with a high albedo, the
> default extincion looks too dark).
>
> Margus
>
> Fabien HENON wrote in message <36F39875.65C694FF@club-internet.fr>...
> >This picture took my K6-200 about 50 hours to render. The reason for
> >such a long time is the media feature to model the clouds. I'll buy a
> >Cray next time !!!
> >The first quarter of this image was rendered using Pov for Dos 3.1a.
> >The last three-quarters were rendered using Mark Gordon's 'still
> >unofficial' release of POVLINUX.
> >I was afraid I might get a different rendering, but no.
> >By the way, any news of a new official release soon Mark? (if you read
> >this).
> >
> >Once again, thanks to the POV-TEAM and the programmers around the world
> >who developped for or around this great renderer.
> >

> >
> >
> >

Post a reply to this message

I have posted the scripts at text.scenes.files .
Lum.pov is to create the H_F and nuages2.pov is the one to render.

Be warned though, the script is very messy. Anyway you should manage to
see the media keyword in that shamble.





> GrimDude wrote in message <36f3f118.0@news.povray.org>...
> >Inspiring! I would really like to see the media code.
> >
> >GrimDude
> >vos### [at] arkansasnet
> >
> >
>
> [Sigh!]

Post a reply to this message

I know, I know. Render with POV only and leave painting to the Photo
Shop users, right?
I did say though I only change a few pixels sometimes. Usually its a
case of bad CSG done or a slight malformation due to refraction and the
max_trace_level needed turning up. So instead of spending too much time
on one thing and move on I am sometimes forced to correct a tiny bit
before using a rendered image as my latest Windows wallpaper.
Not proud of this fact I assure you. Call it a supplement to my being
able to continue raytracing with POV-Ray and not stuck on just an
infinite plane.
The bump_map sounds like a good idea Fabien. Using anything but P-R 3.1d
that is. You could make a orthogonal view image from above the scene and
use it. Add in a small wave-breaking shoreline all along the water edge.
Got me wondering now how this could be done with straight POV.


Ken wrote:
> 
> Fabien HENON wrote:
> >
> > What I meant by using Photoshop, was not post processing to add waves along
> > the shores via Photoshop, but to use it to create the a bump_map to put as a
> > texture for the sea.
> >
> > I did use post-processing for the lens-flare and increase the contrast.
> >

> 
> That comment was not really for you. I was pestering Bob a little bit.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

> I know, I know. Render with POV only and leave painting to the Photo
> Shop users, right?
> I did say though I only change a few pixels sometimes. Usually its a
> case of bad CSG done or a slight malformation due to refraction and the
> max_trace_level needed turning up. So instead of spending too much time
> on one thing and move on I am sometimes forced to correct a tiny bit
> before using a rendered image as my latest Windows wallpaper.
> Not proud of this fact I assure you. Call it a supplement to my being
> able to continue raytracing with POV-Ray and not stuck on just an
> infinite plane.
> The bump_map sounds like a good idea Fabien. Using anything but P-R 3.1d
> that is. You could make a orthogonal view image from above the scene and
> use it. Add in a small wave-breaking shoreline all along the water edge.
>

> Got me wondering now how this could be done with straight POV.
>

Anyone who has the answer will be rewarded with a Free Licence of POVRAY 3.1a.
<grin>.




>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Fabien HENON wrote:
> > >
> > > What I meant by using Photoshop, was not post processing to add waves along
> > > the shores via Photoshop, but to use it to create the a bump_map to put as a
> > > texture for the sea.
> > >
> > > I did use post-processing for the lens-flare and increase the contrast.
> > >

> >
> > That comment was not really for you. I was pestering Bob a little bit.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
> >
> > mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
> --
>  omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>   http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
>  mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message