Hugo <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote:

>>> Criticisms (constructive, of course)?

> You're doing fine! My thoughts:

> 1) The white bottom is too bright. Really.

Truely.  That's actual scattering media, so it's not without reason, but
reducing it will darken the rest of the image, which I'm not sure is a goof
thing.

> 2) I didn't realize it was smoke in the background, until someone said
> so. I think it looks too rough. It should be smooth. You could add
> something behind the smoke, for the rough and realistic look, but if you
> want to keep the "edge of the world effect" (interesting idea, and I
> think you should) then I suggest you keep things simple, behind the
> smoke. Eventually just a wall, for example.

Since the swirly patterns are done with the Galaxy.inc file, I don't think
there can really be much behind them.  Have to think about it though.

> 4) Someone said "they're too clean" and it's true, but I disagree that a
> granite pattern would help. It would just give more noise in the
> picture. Better to use a texture that looks like either sludge or algae
> has been running down the walls for a long time.. But discrete, and if
> possible, not just some long "lines", but have each stone affect it.

You've read my mind actually.  I had written down some notes this morning
about adding a mossy layer on the lower stones, fading away as it gets
higher.  I'm not sure how it'll look, but I'm going to give it a go.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

This is a really GREAT render.  I really like the masonry and the design
of the castle, etc.

How is the wall lit?  It might be really useful to *try* a radiosity
render.  If it's supposed to be lit by the mist, IMHO I think the shadow
of the railing and a lot of other stuff is way too distinct.

Like others, I also think the individual stones need to be bumpier. 
Maybe you could use a bump_map or something.  The texture should be a
mix of some smooth pattern like bozo and some creased pattern like
wrinkles or crackle. (check out some natural stone masonry in your
area).  Plus, if you are using crackle with metric 1.0(?) to make the
bricks, you might want to increase it to 1.2 or something.

Also like others, I think the glowing mist is too bright.  If it's
media, maybe you could put a dark, indistinct, huge figure somewhere
near the top.  It would make a dark area in the mist and give the
spellcaster a target.

Again, I agree about the sky.  If everything is supposed to be this
bright, how can you even see the stars (or whatever those specks
are...)  Have you tried to see the stars at night when you have any
significant light nearby?  Try looking out a window of your house at
night.  Everything you see is way dark because your eyes are adjusted to
the light.

Keep up the great work.

-Ben

Post a reply to this message

Ben Birdsey <cla### [at] mailcom> wrote:


> This is a really GREAT render.  I really like the masonry and the design
> of the castle, etc.

Thanks.

> How is the wall lit?  It might be really useful to *try* a radiosity
> render.  If it's supposed to be lit by the mist, IMHO I think the shadow
> of the railing and a lot of other stuff is way too distinct.

This is a radiosity render.  There are only two light sources in the
picture, one under the mist (which is scattering media) and one at the ball
of light.  Most of the shadows are from the latter.  The tall hazy shadows
are from the former.  I'm assuming that scattering media + radiosity handles
these lights correctly, but I may be wrong on that.

> Like others, I also think the individual stones need to be bumpier. 
> Maybe you could use a bump_map or something.  The texture should be a
> mix of some smooth pattern like bozo and some creased pattern like
> wrinkles or crackle. (check out some natural stone masonry in your
> area).  Plus, if you are using crackle with metric 1.0(?) to make the
> bricks, you might want to increase it to 1.2 or something.

I'm planning on adding some bumps to the iso, but haven't done so because
that's fairly easy, but will slow the render, so I'm waiting until more of
the details are in place.

> Also like others, I think the glowing mist is too bright.  If it's
> media, maybe you could put a dark, indistinct, huge figure somewhere
> near the top.  It would make a dark area in the mist and give the
> spellcaster a target.

Hmm, that's an idea.  Have to think about it.  I think it might take
attention away from some of the other things I've been doing.

> Again, I agree about the sky.  If everything is supposed to be this
> bright, how can you even see the stars (or whatever those specks
> are...)  Have you tried to see the stars at night when you have any
> significant light nearby?  Try looking out a window of your house at
> night.  Everything you see is way dark because your eyes are adjusted to
> the light.

In some ways, the sky is still too bright.  It casts a lot of light into the
deep shapws.  At the same time, it casts light onto the shingles on the top
of the tower, something I spent too $#%^ing long on to have it swallowed by
darkness. ;)  Have to consider what to do.

> Keep up the great work.

Intend on it.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
> 

This looks great; actually reminds me of a (good) painting rather than a
raytraced image. I think the background adds a good deal to this.
A little wear and tear on the walls, maybe some objects cluttering the
walls and platforms to make the place a bit more lived-in. Difficult to
suggest anything in particular without knowing more of the backstory.
The bright fog hurts my eyes, but then anything above rgb 0.5 tends to
do that to me :)

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:

> Geoff Wedig wrote:
>> 
>> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
>> 

> This looks great; actually reminds me of a (good) painting rather than a
> raytraced image. I think the background adds a good deal to this.

That was part of the effect I was going for, actually.  Glad it comes
through.

> A little wear and tear on the walls, maybe some objects cluttering the
> walls and platforms to make the place a bit more lived-in. Difficult to
> suggest anything in particular without knowing more of the backstory.
> The bright fog hurts my eyes, but then anything above rgb 0.5 tends to
> do that to me :)

I dislike it too, but when I drop the lighting so the fog is less bright,
the picture becomes completely dark elsewhere.

I might try a light source to light the fog, then a light source that is
unaffected by media for the rest of the pic.  That might work.

And you can always turn your brightness down :P

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Hi Geoff,

This is a wonderful picture, so full of ideas
and great dimension and perspective. It's
such a superb picture, there's not alot to say
negative. But I'll try to get picky:

1. I think the mist at the bottom is too bright.

2. I don't care for the vertical line that appears
where the blocks all line up on the left side. The
blocks should overlap or they would be unsound.
The part I'm talking about is a vertical line in the
blocks directly behind the lergest glow.

4. The turrets and windows look "cutout" rather
than built-in.

5. Maybe it could use more distance in the back-
ground.

6. With all that mist, it seems there should be some
shininess to the blocks, at least the lower ones. And
I agree with those who mentioned adding moss.

All in all, a really great work.
=Bob=



"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AB### [at] darwincwruedu...
: Well, I may not be HE Day, but that's all the more reason for me to ask
for
: other people's thoughts.  So here's my current IRTC WIP.  Sorry about the
size
: of the image for those with smallish monitors, but I needed to go that big
: (1024x768) to get the detail I wanted. ;)
:
: So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
:
: Geoff

Post a reply to this message

=Bob= <bob### [at] threestrandscom> wrote:

> Hi Geoff,

> This is a wonderful picture, so full of ideas
> and great dimension and perspective. It's
> such a superb picture, there's not alot to say
> negative. But I'll try to get picky:

> 1. I think the mist at the bottom is too bright.

Unfortunately, I'm having a bear of a time fixing this.  Still working on it
though.  Any experts on scattering media want to give me a hand?  I need a
cloud cover with a bright patch in the center, but foggy by the edges, and
thick enough that you can't see what's below throughout.  I I lessen the
density, the brightness fades to the center, but so does the opacity.  What
I'd really like is an opaque cloud layer with something bright underneath,
but doing it the naive way (a cloud layer with a bright object underneath)
doesn't seem to be working well.

> 2. I don't care for the vertical line that appears
> where the blocks all line up on the left side. The
> blocks should overlap or they would be unsound.
> The part I'm talking about is a vertical line in the
> blocks directly behind the lergest glow.

Drat.  You noticed. :P  The algorithm I use is a rewritten version of the
mur.inc.  I didn't like the way vertical lines would often appear, so I got
rid of them in my algorithm (as well as a lot of other stuff.  The algorithm
is significantly more complex)  However, I work in blocks, and the curve in
block is separate from the tower curve (they're basically conic sections)
I'd hoped I could hide it in the background... :/

> 4. The turrets and windows look "cutout" rather
> than built-in.

I'm not sure why.  They're both built in to the algorithm in the sense that
there was never anything there.  One problem might be that relatively small
stones were used around them, compared to the rest of the structure.

> 5. Maybe it could use more distance in the back-
> ground.

> 6. With all that mist, it seems there should be some
> shininess to the blocks, at least the lower ones. And
> I agree with those who mentioned adding moss.

Yep.  Wall in the works, and is half done (the easy half, sadly)

> All in all, a really great work.


Thanks

Post a reply to this message

Hi Geoff,

Ok, here's why I think the openings don't look
right. When I look at pictures of real castles,
the distance between the openings (crenels)
at the top of the turrets should be smaller than
the material (merlons) between them, otherwise
it's not sturdy. In some cases you have a single
block there, so it looks cut-out, rather than built
there. Maybe make the crenels smaller and make
the blocks in the merlons small enough to have
more than one. Take a look at this pic:

http://www.castlewales.com/pembroke.html

See how wide the merlons are?

I wish I had some answers for you on the media.
I'm still fuddling with it myself. Did you try the
scattering? You might need to use some fog
to help it too.

Wishing you a grand and wonderful day!
=Bob=



"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3ab67a20@news.povray.org...
: =Bob= <bob### [at] threestrandscom> wrote:
:
: > Hi Geoff,
:
: > This is a wonderful picture, so full of ideas
: > and great dimension and perspective. It's
: > such a superb picture, there's not alot to say
: > negative. But I'll try to get picky:
:
: > 1. I think the mist at the bottom is too bright.
:
: Unfortunately, I'm having a bear of a time fixing this.  Still working on
it
: though.  Any experts on scattering media want to give me a hand?  I need a
: cloud cover with a bright patch in the center, but foggy by the edges, and
: thick enough that you can't see what's below throughout.  I I lessen the
: density, the brightness fades to the center, but so does the opacity.
What
: I'd really like is an opaque cloud layer with something bright underneath,
: but doing it the naive way (a cloud layer with a bright object underneath)
: doesn't seem to be working well.
:
: > 2. I don't care for the vertical line that appears
: > where the blocks all line up on the left side. The
: > blocks should overlap or they would be unsound.
: > The part I'm talking about is a vertical line in the
: > blocks directly behind the lergest glow.
:
: Drat.  You noticed. :P  The algorithm I use is a rewritten version of the
: mur.inc.  I didn't like the way vertical lines would often appear, so I
got
: rid of them in my algorithm (as well as a lot of other stuff.  The
algorithm
: is significantly more complex)  However, I work in blocks, and the curve
in
: block is separate from the tower curve (they're basically conic sections)
: I'd hoped I could hide it in the background... :/
:
: > 4. The turrets and windows look "cutout" rather
: > than built-in.
:
: I'm not sure why.  They're both built in to the algorithm in the sense
that
: there was never anything there.  One problem might be that relatively
small
: stones were used around them, compared to the rest of the structure.
:
: > 5. Maybe it could use more distance in the back-
: > ground.
:
: > 6. With all that mist, it seems there should be some
: > shininess to the blocks, at least the lower ones. And
: > I agree with those who mentioned adding moss.
:
: Yep.  Wall in the works, and is half done (the easy half, sadly)
:
: > All in all, a really great work.
:
:
: Thanks

Post a reply to this message

I meant emission!

: I'm still fuddling with it myself. Did you try the
: scattering? You might need to use some fog

=Bob=

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Well, I may not be HE Day, but that's all the more reason for me to ask for
> other people's thoughts.  So here's my current IRTC WIP.  Sorry about the size
> of the image for those with smallish monitors, but I needed to go that big
> (1024x768) to get the detail I wanted. ;)
> 
> So thoughts?  Criticisms (constructive, of course)?
> 

That stones look impressive, maybe try to vary their texture individually
to make them look more natural.  

I would also make the fog less bright and maybe add some background
landscape between the towers.

I would like to see some of your stone code, will you include it when you
submit it?

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message