 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The first one (non-parallel rays) looks much better. The reason for my opinion on
this is that even though they look non-parallel, they could, in fact, be parallel.
The camera angle might give the impression of non-parallel rays, such as are seen in
real life. Nice media :)
Bob Hughes wrote:
> Like many people I try these sky pictures off and on and with the recent ones
> being done I've tried again. Top render was fine for the sky I thought but then
> I went and had to try and improve upon it and forgot to save the original script
> as it first was. With luck I'll find the correct settings again I hope.
> There's not that much to it, only two patterns on a sphere based upon Chris
> Huff's scene.
> It also has non-parallel sunbeams, another reason for making changes; which is
> how I ended up with the bottom render. I mucked it up pretty good I think, but
> hey, look at those 'parallel' beams thanks to MegaPov. I couldn't get parallel
> sun-beams with a point light source the first time and wondered why the first
> picture didn't look right. So the second render uses a spotlight (says in the
> doc it can be done with point lights too?). Never mind the rainbow, it isn't in
> a realistic position, there for looks.
> The ground became a height field which helped it a lot, but the water and sky
> suffered. I never get completely good renders done!
> It could be wetlands or river delta but I'd have to spend much more time on it,
> so later maybe.
> Thanks Lewis and Chris for motivating me to do something like this again anyhow.
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
> [Image]
--
Samuel Benge
E-Mail: STB### [at] aol com
Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The non-parallel one looks more realistic, anyway,
at least for the sun's apparent position.
rc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mick Hazelgrove
Subject: Re: sunbeam skies go awry [~50KB Jpg]
Date: 5 Apr 2000 02:34:59
Message: <38eade93@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Excellent!!! the rays shouldn't be parallel anyway. Definitely would like to
know how you achieved this.
Keep up the good work.
Mick
--
*************************************************************
http://www.mhazelgrove.fsnet.co.uk/index.hml
*************************************************************
"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:38ea57aa@news.povray.org...
> Like many people I try these sky pictures off and on and with the recent
ones
> being done I've tried again. Top render was fine for the sky I thought
but then
> I went and had to try and improve upon it and forgot to save the original
script
> as it first was. With luck I'll find the correct settings again I hope.
> There's not that much to it, only two patterns on a sphere based upon
Chris
> Huff's scene.
> It also has non-parallel sunbeams, another reason for making changes;
which is
> how I ended up with the bottom render. I mucked it up pretty good I
think, but
> hey, look at those 'parallel' beams thanks to MegaPov. I couldn't get
parallel
> sun-beams with a point light source the first time and wondered why the
first
> picture didn't look right. So the second render uses a spotlight (says in
the
> doc it can be done with point lights too?). Never mind the rainbow, it
isn't in
> a realistic position, there for looks.
> The ground became a height field which helped it a lot, but the water and
sky
> suffered. I never get completely good renders done!
> It could be wetlands or river delta but I'd have to spend much more time
on it,
> so later maybe.
> Thanks Lewis and Chris for motivating me to do something like this again
anyhow.
>
> Bob
> --
> omniVerse http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/all.htm
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hartmut Wagener wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> about the physics, it just looks better.
> Go on, i think i will never be able to look media like this ...
In fact the rays coming through the clouds in reality _are_ parallel.
But they don't look like that because of the perspective. This should
be possible to model in POV, too.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc Schimmler" <sch### [at] icauni-stuttgartde> wrote in message
news:38EA5BC7.BF652B09@ica.uni-stuttgart.de...
| The rays doesn't need to be parallel. After the discussion here when
| Mick published his cloudy pic I looked for references and found that he
| had been right.
Yes, but this non-parallel one makes it look as though the sun is there in the
corner and I believe it's out of the picture instead. 'angle 67' in the camera,
so it is a wide field of view.
Glad you liked. I'll probably spend a good part of the day looking for those
first settings and when I do get it looking okay (that's a relative statement)
again I'll post the pov script.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Found this about it :
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gl%29/guides/mtr/opt/air/crp.rxml
However it seems that crepuscular is meant for near horizon sunlight, "relating
to twilight" as it says there at the page. Should be the same thing though even
if 12 noon and storm clouds obscure all but some of the sunlight. The
parallel-yet-not phenomenon must only be perspective.
Bob
"Ben Paschke" <ben### [at] rspcomau> wrote in message
news:38EA8E1F.9BCD927F@rsp.com.au...
| i think i've also heard them being referred to as "fingers of God".
| benp
|
| Snowman wrote:
|
| > I think that this "phenomenon" is called 'crepuscular rays' (not really a
| > phenomenon, but you know what I mean)
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yep, if and when I get this thing back to a better look I'll post the pov
script.
Glad you liked it too Hartmut, but it's really only trial and error for the
cloud textures mostly. A contained media isn't too bad to work with.
Bob
"Markus Becker" <mar### [at] studentuni-siegende> wrote in message
news:38EB073A.7824441F@student.uni-siegen.de...
| Hartmut Wagener wrote:
| >
| > Hey,
| >
| > about the physics, it just looks better.
| > Go on, i think i will never be able to look media like this ...
|
| In fact the rays coming through the clouds in reality _are_ parallel.
| But they don't look like that because of the perspective. This should
| be possible to model in POV, too.
|
| Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks guys, it'll be posted if I can return the clouds to more like the first
time.
Bob
"Mick Hazelgrove" <mha### [at] mindaswinternetcouk> wrote in message
news:38eade93@news.povray.org...
| Excellent!!! the rays shouldn't be parallel anyway. Definitely would like to
| know how you achieved this.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Impressive, but I think that in this particular image the
sky looks too close to the ground, I think it's just a
scale thing.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:17am up 1 day, 12:51, 4 users, load average: 1.30, 1.07, 1.02
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I must say, the top pic is REALLY good!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
