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

Attachments:
Download 'sunbeamskies.jpg' (36 KB)

Preview of image 'sunbeamskies.jpg'

Hi Bob!

The first one is definitely better!!!
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.

Keep one going ... this one sure has class.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

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

Hey,


about the physics, it just looks better.
Go on, i think i will never be able to look media like this ...

Hartmut

Bob Hughes schrieb in Nachricht <38ea57aa@news.povray.org>...
...

Post a reply to this message

A promosing start! Definitely keep going on this.

--
___     _______________________________________________
 | \     |_          <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine        http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali

Post a reply to this message

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

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] aolcom

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

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