Hey,

This started off as a try at an image using a photo of a sky image mapped
onto a sphere to simulate a real sky, just to see how well I could mix them.
But as I was looking through a stock photo CD of mine to find a good cloud
photo, I came across an image of a cloudless sunset sky. I have tried at
various times before to get the colours right in a sunset sky, and I have
never had much luck. But using the photo as a base, and with the help of
some glows from MegaPovPlus, I think I have hit the mark. Do you agree?

The first image is the original photo, the second is the render. I just
stuck in a quick watery plane to through back some of the colours from the
sky.

Equiprawn

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'SunSetPhoto.jpg' (16 KB) Download 'SunSetRender.jpg' (22 KB)

Preview of image 'SunSetPhoto.jpg'

Preview of image 'SunSetRender.jpg'

Equiprawn wrote:
> I think I have hit the mark. Do you agree?
> 

I have this bad habit of skimming through the message on these posts and
jumping down to the images.  I got just enough from the text to know
that one image was a photo and one was a render, and I was convinced the
one with the water was the photo and the other was the render.  So if
that's any gauge, I'd say I agree that you hit the mark :)

Ken (Cecka)

Post a reply to this message

>I think I have hit the mark. Do you agree?

Quite :))


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

It's very close. You need to tighten the falloff closer to the origin. Also,
you should average a cylindrical on z with the planar or gradient y that
you've got there, so the falloff is more like the above image, circular.
Still, a very good first try. Keep it up. (Comment on my 9/10/2000 scene,
please.)

Post a reply to this message

Hey,

Thanks :) Though as Tony[B] says, the lateral distortion in my sunset is
quite obvious.

Equiprawn

Ken Cecka <cec### [at] alumniwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:39BBC08A.E97D0A7A@alumni.washington.edu...
> Equiprawn wrote:
> > I think I have hit the mark. Do you agree?
> >
>
> I have this bad habit of skimming through the message on these posts and
> jumping down to the images.  I got just enough from the text to know
> that one image was a photo and one was a render, and I was convinced the
> one with the water was the photo and the other was the render.  So if
> that's any gauge, I'd say I agree that you hit the mark :)
>
> Ken (Cecka)

Post a reply to this message

Hey,

Thanks.

I tried to fix this before I posted teh image, with a transparent -> black
gradient scaled by 0.2 on the X axis (the sunset you see is mapped onto a
sphere of 500x500x100 units to give it the base lens type shape), but
scaling on that axis made no difference to the shape of the gradient. I had
a look for a post by you on that date, but I don't see it listed?

Equiprawn

Tony[B] <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote in message
news:39bcfc79@news.povray.org...
> It's very close. You need to tighten the falloff closer to the origin.
Also,
> you should average a cylindrical on z with the planar or gradient y that
> you've got there, so the falloff is more like the above image, circular.
> Still, a very good first try. Keep it up. (Comment on my 9/10/2000 scene,
> please.)
>
>

Post a reply to this message