David Wilkinson wrote:
> 
> Looking at this I swear I can hear the echoes of the water lapping against the sides
of the
> tunnel. (I can't smell the seaweed though :-)
> Great work.
> David
> 

Thanks, now that you mention seaweed i remember that i originally planned
to add some plants growing above the tunnel and reaching into view, but
i'm no more sure if that's a good idea...

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

Thanks for the comments, but what do you think of the different
reflection?  The previous version should be more realistic in fact, but
i'm not really sure what's better.  

BTW, i forgot to mention that i reduced radiosity recursion_limit from 2
to 1 without much loss in quality (maybe it's even better).  This caused a
major speedup, which of course was compensated by the granite function :-(

I gave up the heightfield brick idea for the moment, because the varying
brick size makes this difficult, but i think about adding some
hierarchical bounding for the single brick rows.  

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 in message
news:3B013298.F49B85B0@gmx.de...
>
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> >     If you were to present this as a photo to someone who didn't know
you
> > did POV, it would pass without question.
>
> Not sure about that, the water structure for example seems quite too
> regular to me.

    Right, but if the observer didn't -suspect- any trickery, it would pass.
They probably wouldn't even notice the regularity and if they did they would
simply wonder at it, not assume that it must be a fake.

    I think that we who do know better are much more discerning than the
average guy and it is helpful to remember that when tweaking an image for
weeks. Another week to get the light on the underside of a leaf that most
people won't even notice may not be worth it...

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
>     Right, but if the observer didn't -suspect- any trickery, it would pass.
> They probably wouldn't even notice the regularity and if they did they would
> simply wonder at it, not assume that it must be a fake.
> 

If i do a nice color print with some additional blur, graininess and dirt,
you could be fairly right.  More important than technical aspects are
probably the form of presentation and the actual content of the picture
(if the stones were flying...) 

>     I think that we who do know better are much more discerning than the
> average guy and it is helpful to remember that when tweaking an image for
> weeks. Another week to get the light on the underside of a leaf that most
> people won't even notice may not be worth it...

I think we also tend to loose objectivity when looking at the same scene
too often - after several 70hour traces you can simply get bored by
certain details...

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

Bill's right, about it passing...

For us discriminating folk, perhaps you should scale the water rmf down
a little bit and add a slight large-scale undulating pattern like bozo
to it.

The stone is great.  Oh, and the plants are a good idea!  ;)

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

Post a reply to this message

I feel a real attachment to this image.  I think it's gorgeous.  The reflected
areas do flatten into the same color a bit but I don't think it necessarily
detracts. You might also watch that the texture of the water and the texture
of the stones don't mimic each other too closely.
/jc

Post a reply to this message

Now all you need is the small raft with the river rats lounging on it whilst
they sail out to sea.

<BG>
Robert J Becraft
aka cas### [at] aolcom


Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3B00D911.C293782F@gmx.de...
>
> I tried reflection_type 0 this time, reflection_max is reduced to get a
> result more similar to the old one, with 1.0 the water in the distance has
> a quite too strong sky-like color IMO.
>
> For the stones i now tried a granite pigment function, the scaling of the
> stones got changed by this so the gaps are slightly larger now.  Also note
> that i reused old photon data form the different geometry so the lighting
> probably is quite wrong.
>
> render time was about 65-70 hours, but megapov crashed just some lines
> before the end so this is unfinished.
>
> 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

Stunning work, but we want plants. 

-- 
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

  1:57pm  up 104 days, 14:45,  2 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Post a reply to this message