 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Attachments:
Download 'paysage.jpg' (58 KB)
Preview of image 'paysage.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien HENON wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Nice, thought the mountains could use a bit of editing but guess 50
hours of waiting really discourages to render it again :)
I like it
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, rendering without the clouds just takes 10 minutes with AA0.2 at
800*400 pixels.
Improving the texture of the mountain would not be too much of a problem. I
would just re-render it during the next week-end.
> Fabien HENON wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Nice, thought the mountains could use a bit of editing but guess 50
> hours of waiting really discourages to render it again :)
>
> I like it
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
beautiful.
Fabien HENON wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> [Image]
--
//Spider
[ spi### [at] bahnhof se ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
"Marian"
By: "Sisters Of Mercy"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Inspiring! I would really like to see the media code.
GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! Those clouds are really great!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice. Think you could manage a shoreline? The water could use some
wave breaking and the land an "edge"--- rocky, sandy, whatever--- at the
beach zone. How many times has this been said in other such instances? I
know, I'm just remarking so you don't go home with just good words.
I realize the distance is great and they might not be very visible but
just a slight touch and there wouldn't be such a sudden polar ice cap
melt look to this thing maybe.
Hope I can make such pictures too someday.
Fabien HENON wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Very nice. Think you could manage a shoreline? The water could use some
> wave breaking and the land an "edge"--- rocky, sandy, whatever--- at the
> beach zone.
Well, I did think of adding a shore line with a breaking waves. The problem is
that I have not figured out (yet how to match the decreasing bump_map as it goes
away from the mountains. Besudes, the waves should be roughly parallel to the
contours of the mountains. With a good use of Photoshop maybe ?
> How many times has this been said in other such instances? I
> know, I'm just remarking so you don't go home with just good words.
> I realize the distance is great and they might not be very visible but
> just a slight touch and there wouldn't be such a sudden polar ice cap
> melt look to this thing maybe.
> Hope I can make such pictures too someday.
I thought of posting the script but the mere size of the height_field (~1.3 Mb
with a png file) deterred me from doing it.
Thakns for all your comments. Yours and those of the others I did not reply to.
>
> Fabien HENON wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Image]
>
> --
> 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 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.
Fabien HENON wrote:
>
>
> > Very nice. Think you could manage a shoreline? The water could use some
> > wave breaking and the land an "edge"--- rocky, sandy, whatever--- at the
> > beach zone.
>
> Well, I did think of adding a shore line with a breaking waves. The problem is
> that I have not figured out (yet how to match the decreasing bump_map as it goes
> away from the mountains. Besudes, the waves should be roughly parallel to the
> contours of the mountains. With a good use of Photoshop maybe ?
>
> > How many times has this been said in other such instances? I
> > know, I'm just remarking so you don't go home with just good words.
> > I realize the distance is great and they might not be very visible but
> > just a slight touch and there wouldn't be such a sudden polar ice cap
> > melt look to this thing maybe.
> > Hope I can make such pictures too someday.
>
> I thought of posting the script but the mere size of the height_field (~1.3 Mb
> with a png file) deterred me from doing it.
>
> Thakns for all your comments. Yours and those of the others I did not reply to.
>
>
> >
> > Fabien HENON wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > [Image]
> >
> > --
> > omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> > http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> > mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
