 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
hours. I think i will try to optimize things like using heightfields for
the upper bricks.
I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
messy.
I really need a faster computer...
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'water_tunnel04.jpg' (63 KB)
Preview of image 'water_tunnel04.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That looks real good, but up close the surface of
the water looks like concrete that's been moved around
and left to dry. Something about the sape of it, not
the texture.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
10:30am up 97 days, 11:17, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.04, 1.06
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was going to disagree about it being too dark but I think I know what you
mean. The sunlit part could be made more intense to match the bright sky,
in that way it might seem to relate to a darkened tunnel better.
I was also thinking that the waters color might do well with a change from
shallow to deep (in the distance).
It is a great rendering.
Bob H.
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3AFA4310.CF61E6E0@gmx.de...
>
> Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
> hours. I think i will try to optimize things like using heightfields for
> the upper bricks.
>
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
> messy.
>
> I really need a faster computer...
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-- this looks perfect now - really reminds me of riven - but thats probably
because i am playing it like a crazy thing at the moment, so i can finish it
before myst 3 comes out
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Awesome
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3AFA4310.CF61E6E0@gmx.de...
>
> Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
> hours. I think i will try to optimize things like using heightfields for
> the upper bricks.
>
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
> messy.
>
> I really need a faster computer...
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This looks excellent. I don't know what you're complaining about. If
anything, I would worry about that render time, but it seems to be worth
it... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> That looks real good, but up close the surface of
> the water looks like concrete that's been moved around
> and left to dry. Something about the sape of it, not
> the texture.
>
I think i know what you mean, for the forground some rounder shapes
different from the sharp ridges of RMF would probably be better.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob H." wrote:
>
> I was going to disagree about it being too dark but I think I know what you
> mean. The sunlit part could be made more intense to match the bright sky,
> in that way it might seem to relate to a darkened tunnel better.
Exactly, the range of contrast in this one is quite low and the brightness
of the shadowed parts much more depends on the fog and other things than
on the light source.
> I was also thinking that the waters color might do well with a change from
> shallow to deep (in the distance).
Sounds like a good idea, i am already playing with a darker ground too.
> It is a great rendering.
>
Thanks, having to look at it for >70 hours probably makes it look worse
than it is. :-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> -- this looks perfect now - really reminds me of riven - but thats probably
> because i am playing it like a crazy thing at the moment, so i can finish it
> before myst 3 comes out
>
Thanks,
don't know 'riven', but i rarely know computer games at all, if it really
looks similar, a screenshot would be nice...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> Awesome
>
Thank you.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> This looks excellent. I don't know what you're complaining about. If
> anything, I would worry about that render time, but it seems to be worth
> it... :)
Thanks,
the main thing i'm complaining about is that i want to change things to
make it look better, but all changes tend to make it much slower - quite a
bad situation.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, 17 lines --]
> Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
> hours. I think i will try to optimize things like using heightfields for
> the upper bricks.
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
> messy.
> I really need a faster computer...
Don't we all...
There seems to be a repititive element in the four stones at the waterline
on the left. Each has the same funky light/dark patch at thenear end.
Looking closes, a similar sort of funkiness is happening on the next row up.
I don't know if it's a trick of the light (heh) or a glitch in your
randomization process, but you might want to play with that a bit.
Other than that, it looks excellent. The splotchy darness actually works
well for me, as there's reflections from the water.
Geoff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look
quite
> messy.
This looks really really nice.. I love the subtle changes in light on
the tunnel wall, and for me I really like the lighting you've achieved
with this, it looks very natural. The shadows have a good level of
contrast too.
Steve
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Geoff Wedig wrote:
>
> > I really need a faster computer...
>
> Don't we all...
>
:-)
> There seems to be a repititive element in the four stones at the waterline
> on the left. Each has the same funky light/dark patch at thenear end.
> Looking closes, a similar sort of funkiness is happening on the next row up.
> I don't know if it's a trick of the light (heh) or a glitch in your
> randomization process, but you might want to play with that a bit.
Ah, finally someone who noticed that, i also saw it when the render was
going on, seems i 'forgot' a random variation of the noise... :-)
>
> Other than that, it looks excellent. The splotchy darness actually works
> well for me, as there's reflections from the water.
>
Thanks, i agree it looks quite ok, but in a larger render... i probably
should forget about that anyway...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
sacrofts wrote:
>
> This looks really really nice.. I love the subtle changes in light on the tunnel
wall, and for me I really like the lighting you've achieved with this, it looks very
natural. The shadows have a good level of contrast too.
>
Thanks, but IMO the contrast in a sunlight scene like this should be
higher - if you compare it to the previous renders, i think the difference
is quite obvious.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beautiful ! I love it! it's photo-realistic...
did you use focal blur?
How did you do the horizon? Fog or media? And for the clouds?
And the rocks, are they isosurfaces or height_fields?
Just trying to learn...
Louis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice, but IMHO usually sea and sky will have quite the same color
on the horizon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thanks, but IMO the contrast in a sunlight scene like this should be
> higher - if you compare it to the previous renders, i think the
difference
> is quite obvious.
I just found the first version, I see what you mean, but I wouldn't have
noticed the difference without comparing the two.
Steve
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hubert Séguin" wrote:
>
> Beautiful ! I love it! it's photo-realistic...
Thank you.
> did you use focal blur?
No, i usually don't like focal blur in outdoor (landscape) pictures.
> How did you do the horizon? Fog or media?
It's just fog, i would like it more dense, but the foreground does suffer
from that, maybe meadia would be a good idea.
> And for the clouds?
Just a large sphere with bozo.
> And the rocks, are they isosurfaces or height_fields?
>
isosurfaces ('spheres' with granite pigment function)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Very nice, but IMHO usually sea and sky will have quite the same color
> on the horizon.
I don't really think so, of course dust can make the horizon line quite
invisible, but i think the color usually differs.
Anyway i use reflection_type 1 and reflection_max 1.0. I'm not really
satisfied with how the near horizon part looks so maybe i will try some
changes.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The wonderful thing about this image is the "actual transparentness" of the
water: pleasing value-add realism.
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Not sure if this is much improved, but it is much slower now: about 75
> hours.� I think i will try to optimize things like using heightfields for
> the upper bricks.
>
> I dimmed the light a bit, but it turns out to be quite dark now.
> Radiosity quality is even lower than before so the shadow parts look quite
> messy.
>
> I really need a faster computer...
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
> things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
>
> � ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> �[Image]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> The wonderful thing about this image is the "actual transparentness" of the
> water: pleasing value-add realism.
>
I actually don't really like the under water part that much, it looks too
uniform IMO. Sadly refractive photons don't work well here as mentioned
before.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
