This picture really does a great job of creating a mood. I especially like
the stone pattern. It has some regularity to it, but also an element of
randomness. I would vary the texture of the stone walls a little though, but
that's just my preference. Is each stone a separate object that can be
individually textured? If so, it might be interesting to vary each one a
little in color and/or surface texture.

The stairway is a nice touch as well.

I can't tell what the brown things are hanging out of the window... Maybe
some pipes?

Regards,
Dave

"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

You have the mood down well. The stone looks kinda plasticy to me though... hmm...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

OK, I was so excited about adding my 2 cents that I didn't read the rest of
the posts first - I see that you already answered that question. I'm
convinced that adjusting the texture of those stones (slimy and wet in the
fog, dry and lighter higher up - or whatever you may have in mind...) is the
key to making this a really great picture.

"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3ab6e2f0@news.povray.org...
> Is each stone a separate object that can be
> individually textured?

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3ab62a1c@news.povray.org...
>
> Does anyone have any data on how much longer adding a (say) granite
pigment
> to the iso takes?  The isos are deformed rounded boxes right now.
>

iirc adding a granite pigment function to my isosurface bricks multiplied
my render time by 5. I wasn't using radiosity however and had a lot of
lights

Gail
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza                *   Step into the abyss,           *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/   *   and let go.        Babylon 5   *
*************************************************************************
* The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer *
*************************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

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

> 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 see what you're saying.  I based these on pics I had from my trip to
France, though.  Obviously these things varied.  However, it's really easy
to change this sort of parameter (my stone laying algorithm is really nice
that way) so I'll see what I can do.  It might knock the supports off,
though.  Right now there's a 121 correspondence between supports and
crennels (the second tower angle is off), and I like that symmetry.  Have to
see what I can do to change it.

> 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.

No problem.  Most media isn't too bad, but this is the first time I've
worked with scattering,  Upping the extinction and splitting the light in
two (one that reacts with media and one that doesn't) seems to be having
some effect, but it's not perfect yet.  Alas, it's also slowed down my image
badly.  It'd been going for 13 hours when I got up this morning and was only
half done, and all the important changes were in the bottom of the pic! 
Arg.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> 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?

I'm working on a doc for it.  Once that's done, it'll be posted here and put
on a website.  I doubt it'll be done by the IRTC submission deadline, but it
might.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Joshua English <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote:

> Wow. The towers look very good. The brick pattern in enviable.
> The sky needs a little work. It is very grainy that is a bit distraction. Also,
> it is not clear what spell is being cast or what it is being cast at.

> I can't wait to see how you did those bricks...

13000+ isosurfaces.  Right now, they're just distorted rounded boxes.  :/
It's the same stone laying code from Door into Summer (posted here awhile
back) and The Summoning (IRTC Contrast round).

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Dave Blandston <gra### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

> This picture really does a great job of creating a mood. I especially like
> the stone pattern. It has some regularity to it, but also an element of
> randomness. I would vary the texture of the stone walls a little though, but
> that's just my preference. Is each stone a separate object that can be
> individually textured? If so, it might be interesting to vary each one a
> little in color and/or surface texture.

Each stone is an iso, and I have complete control over their texturing. 
Right now I'm working on adding some aging to them, but I also want to add a
pigment to the iso to make them a little less regular.

> The stairway is a nice touch as well.

Thanks.

> I can't tell what the brown things are hanging out of the window... Maybe
> some pipes?

Got it in one.  There's going to be something coming out of them, maybe (if
I can get it to work), and perhaps some steam.  That should make it clearer.

Unfortunately, with the detail level I'm working, even at 1024 x 768 details
are often down to a few pixels.  I am hoping to have time to do some detail
shots of important stuff later (not strictly for the IRTC, but because
people may want to see).  For example, the only image_map in the picture is
the figure's eyeballs...

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote:


> Geoff Wedig <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3ab62a1c@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Does anyone have any data on how much longer adding a (say) granite
> pigment
>> to the iso takes?  The isos are deformed rounded boxes right now.
>>

> iirc adding a granite pigment function to my isosurface bricks multiplied
> my render time by 5. I wasn't using radiosity however and had a lot of
> lights

Sounds a little high for my pics.  I have very few lights, and the radiosity
is surprisingly quick.  I did some trials, and I think it might double my
time.  It also made them look kind of a nasty brown (increased shadows) in
places.  Maybe I'll do every 10th brick or so, with more in the lower
segments... Hrm

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, with the detail level I'm working, even at 1024 x 768 details
> are often down to a few pixels.

That's the spirit!

> I am hoping to have time to do some detail
> shots of important stuff later (not strictly for the IRTC, but because
> people may want to see).  For example, the only image_map in the picture is
> the figure's eyeballs...

However, that might be taking it too far!  (Unless an animation is in
the works)

-- 
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
    flabreque     | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
        @         | bothered to come down here and visit us!
  videotron.ca    |                             - Calvin

Post a reply to this message