Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> 
> Here's a new version of my missile image, originally posted 4/27/1999.  It
> is quite a bit different and much better then the last one (take it from me)
> ;-)
> 
> Anyways, please tell me what you think!  It's been a while since I've posted
> anything here :-)
> 

I don't know your original one, but the lens flare at the back of the
missle looks a bit "strange".  Missle and mountain are nice.

Normally, those missels produce much smoke and steam, so you should
perhaps try some media :-)

> 
> P.S. This was compressed at 80% JPEG compression and still looks good.  Just
> as a reference... :-D
> 

Some Images are suited better for compression than others, often, sharp
edges like the mountain-sky line in this case produce artefacts.  


Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for your comments!

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3947F077.C4FF5E04@gmx.de...
> I don't know your original one, but the lens flare at the back of the
> missle looks a bit "strange".  Missle and mountain are nice.

Ohh man, if you want insane lens flare, look up my first one (no, on second
though, DON'T!  ;-)  )
I dunno, the lens flare seems alright to me.  Then again, I'm a little weird
;-)

> Normally, those missels produce much smoke and steam, so you should
> perhaps try some media :-)

I did.  I used SmokeGen for POV-Ray (through the Moray plug-in, of course
;-)  ) to make the smoke out the back.  You can see a little smoke coming
out the missile at the way lower-right portion of the image.  Not enough for
the effect I wanted, but I couldn't get the plug-in to work how I wanted it.
:-(

> > P.S. This was compressed at 80% JPEG compression and still looks good.
Just
> > as a reference... :-D
> >
>
> Some Images are suited better for compression than others, often, sharp
> edges like the mountain-sky line in this case produce artefacts.

You should have seen my old asteroid image with higher compression.  Let's
just say, it didn't look too hot ;-)

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)

Post a reply to this message

Ian Burgmyer wrote:

[...] 
> 
> Ohh man, if you want insane lens flare, look up my first one (no, on second
> though, DON'T!  ;-)  )
> I dunno, the lens flare seems alright to me.  Then again, I'm a little weird
> ;-)
> 

Ok, the lens flare itself is not bad, it's just that something seems
missing.

> > Normally, those missels produce much smoke and steam, so you should
> > perhaps try some media :-)
> 
> I did.  I used SmokeGen for POV-Ray (through the Moray plug-in, of course
> ;-)  ) to make the smoke out the back.  You can see a little smoke coming
> out the missile at the way lower-right portion of the image.  Not enough for
> the effect I wanted, but I couldn't get the plug-in to work how I wanted it.
> :-(
> 

I looked at it again and recognized it (on the first look it seemed like
clouds on the sky and some structure on the mountain).  I thought of
really thick white smoke in the rough shape of a cone.


Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

For my 2 cents the lens flare is a little over the top.
I'm not a fan of lens flare since it is an artifact of
cameras. To me it makes more sense to create
what the eye would see rather than imitate a defect
of cameras.

HB

"Ian Burgmyer" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3947d167@news.povray.org...
> Here's a new version of my missile image, originally posted 4/27/1999.  It
> is quite a bit different and much better then the last one (take it from
me)
> ;-)
>
> Anyways, please tell me what you think!  It's been a while since I've
posted
> anything here :-)
>
> --
> This message brought to you by:
> -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
>
> Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)
> --
>
> P.S. This was compressed at 80% JPEG compression and still looks good.
Just
> as a reference... :-D
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3947FC3E.C6B934B9@gmx.de...
> Ok, the lens flare itself is not bad, it's just that something seems
> missing.

Dad suggested that the lens flare is a little inaccurate, and I agree with
his reasons.  He says that at an angle like that, the rings wouldn't be
visible.  So, I'll try finding a setting without them.

> I looked at it again and recognized it (on the first look it seemed like
> clouds on the sky and some structure on the mountain).  I thought of
> really thick white smoke in the rough shape of a cone.

Yeah, I agree.  Also, I did a little research, and it seems the smoke really
only appears in the upper atmosphere, so I'm just going to use the SmokeGen
plugin for some really sweeeet looking clouds in a later revision.

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for the comments!

"Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
news:394803e3$1@news.povray.org...
> For my 2 cents the lens flare is a little over the top.
> I'm not a fan of lens flare since it is an artifact of
> cameras. To me it makes more sense to create
> what the eye would see rather than imitate a defect
> of cameras.

Oh.  I was hoping to create a camera style effect, because you'd probably
(unless you were even weirder and zanier then me) be praying that you
weren't actually that close to a missile ;-)  I'll probably add come focal
blur later on, focusing on the missile, that way it looks more like a camera
shot.

--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-

Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)

Post a reply to this message

On the other hand, what is great about POV-Ray is that you
can create virtual environments that you couldn't experience in
real life. Thus, you can see what it would look like to be right in
front of a missle- without camera distortions.
Just a different way of looking at it.
I like your missle just the same.

HB

"Ian Burgmyer" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39481007@news.povray.org...
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> Oh.  I was hoping to create a camera style effect, because you'd probably
> (unless you were even weirder and zanier then me) be praying that you
> weren't actually that close to a missile ;-)  I'll probably add come focal
> blur later on, focusing on the missile, that way it looks more like a
camera
> shot.
>

Post a reply to this message

oh just a weensy bit phalic arent you?

Ian Burgmyer wrote:

> Here's a new version of my missile image, originally posted 4/27/1999.  It
> is quite a bit different and much better then the last one (take it from me)
> ;-)
>
> Anyways, please tell me what you think!  It's been a while since I've posted
> anything here :-)
>
> --
> This message brought to you by:
> -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
>
> Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)
> --
>
> P.S. This was compressed at 80% JPEG compression and still looks good.  Just
> as a reference... :-D
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

"Ian Burgmyer" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39480f27@news.povray.org...
| "Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
| news:3947FC3E.C6B934B9@gmx.de...
| > Ok, the lens flare itself is not bad, it's just that something seems
| > missing.
|
| Dad suggested that the lens flare is a little inaccurate, and I agree with
| his reasons.  He says that at an angle like that, the rings wouldn't be
| visible.  So, I'll try finding a setting without them.

I say drop the current flame lens flaring and use a video camera
over-saturation effect there instead.  And the white lens flare would go
nicely on the nose cone for it to be like a gleam of sunshine sparkling off of
it.
Well, maybe not do the video effect on second thought.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

If this is a cruise missle then it needs little wings.  Try looking up
pictures of tomahawks.  Actually it would need four fins and not 3 if it
were not a cruise missle.  I agree that the lens flare is not the best. 
I'd suggest some clear objects with normals on them to try and simulate
a heat effect.  During the day you would not be able to see a flame that
well.

Ian Burgmyer wrote:
> 
> Here's a new version of my missile image, originally posted 4/27/1999.  It
> is quite a bit different and much better then the last one (take it from me)
> ;-)
> 
> Anyways, please tell me what you think!  It's been a while since I've posted
> anything here :-)
> 
> --
> This message brought to you by:
> -=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
> 
> Please visit my site at http://www.spectere.com! :-)
> --
> 
> P.S. This was compressed at 80% JPEG compression and still looks good.  Just
> as a reference... :-D
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message