Is it ? ... wow ...
Anyway you should try to reverse the bumps ...
From the pattern itself I think its a crackle-pattern with some
turbulence, but I maybe wrong, again ...

--
background{rgb 1}camera{location<1,5,-2>look_at 0}#macro
m(a,b,i)#local d=(b-a)
/8;#local
e=vcross(d,y);#if(i)m(a-e,a+e+2*d,i-1)m(a+e,a+2*d-e,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+e
+3*d,i-1)m(a+3*d-e,a+5*d-e,i-1)m(a+6*d-e,a+e+6*d,i-1)m(a+8*d-e,a+e+8*d
,i-1)#else
cylinder{a,b,vlength(d)/3 pigment{rgb 0}}#end#end m(-4*x,2*x,4) // Jan
Walzer

Post a reply to this message

This take looks much better, but it just needs some fog in the background to get
rid of the horizon line, which is a bit distracting.

Josh

Post a reply to this message

I really like how you can see a lot more detail, but the mood _is_ lost.  IMO the
moss looks much better in this lighting tho.

Perhaps there is some way you could reach a mid-light-level compromise...

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

Post a reply to this message

Try to make the water a bit more still!
"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:

> Is it ? ... wow ...
> Anyway you should try to reverse the bumps ...
> From the pattern itself I think its a crackle-pattern with some
> turbulence, but I maybe wrong, again ...

It's a Ridged MF.  I'm still getting the hang of using rmf.  Any good
tutorials out there that show what the numbers actually do?  The
descriptions in the MPov docs don't really tell me much, and they're slow to
render, so I'm loathe to experiment much.

On a different topic (the original one, actually)  Why do you think the
bumps need reversed?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> I really like how you can see a lot more detail, but the mood _is_ lost.  IMO th
> e
> moss looks much better in this lighting tho.

Yeah, the mood is totally different.  I like the mood of the original, but
the mood of this one isn't bad, just... different.  Have to go with
different characters though.  The figure throwing something away just
doesn't work on a bright, sunny day.

> Perhaps there is some way you could reach a mid-light-level compromise...

I've tried, but I didn't get much of anywhere.  I tried using the water in
the dark, but the lighting was all screwed up by the water's ior and such. 
Making the dark version too much brighter messes up the mood as well, but
maybe I can put some point sources (torches or something) to bring out some
of the details.

Hmmmm.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Abe <bul### [at] taconicnet> wrote:

> A couple things I would mention.
> - In daylight this castle looks a little too clean.

Yeah.  Need to scum it up a bit more.

> - The green growth around the water line is not dark or scumy enough.

Well, since the water is a new thing, I hadn't gotten to retexturing
anything for the new pic, but you're right.

> - The person needs better texturing.

Well, the person is probably being removed, if I go with this version.  A
sad man throwing away things doesn't fit this mood.

> ... and please let the sky and clouds do justice to your work on the
> castle!

That would require developing good, fast clouds, and I don't know how (good
*or* fast, I know), and I'd rather work on details on the castle itself.

> I would be intrigued by some mysterious corresponding glow down under
> the water (does this mean a sunset for dimmer ambient lighting to afford
> appropriate contrast?).

Not necessarily.  The glow shows under the water, it just wasn't appealing. 
That and the render time goes up a *lot* when doing it.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

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

> This take looks much better, but it just needs some fog in the background to get
> rid of the horizon line, which is a bit distracting.

Yep.  On the list of 'things to be done'

However, you seem to be in the minority of those who think this is better.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Saadat Saeed <saa### [at] batelcocombh> wrote:

> Try to make the water a bit more still!

More still?  I thought the water was a bit *too* still.  It looks a little
flat.  Needs to have some rolling waves, I thought.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

I'd give it a stormy sky and then of course the whirlpool. Maybe something
glowing under water to add to the mystery...

Nekar Xenos

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwincwruedu> wrote in message
news:3AD### [at] darwincwruedu...
> Ok, was playing around with the lighting and water effects on my IRTC
image
> and came up with this.  Totally different mood, and I'm not sure which
version
> I'll submit.  I've got a bunch of things I want to add, if this one (hey,
you
> can see more, so more there must be!)
>
> So what do people think?
>
> Geoff
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message