 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Hertel wrote:
> Here is another test with the reference picture embedded for comparsion.
Good start.
> Is there need for much more detail?
Usually more details - better ;)
> When I had two such greyscale maps, I used them as height_fields and
> positioned them together with the temporary csg sun, then I did another
> orthographic shot and saved the last heightfield.
Maybe it's better to have the whole scene and apply that gradient texture
to all objects (?) This way you don't loose heightfield quality. The only
problem can arise here - a lack of memory for the herd of horses :)
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Is there need for much more detail?
> Usually more details - better ;)
Yeah, I'll work on that. It looks a bit flat, if I manage to get better
depth in the image it might help as well. Perhaps doing some manual painting
on the image_map will make it look better too.
> > When I had two such greyscale maps, I used them as height_fields and
> > positioned them together with the temporary csg sun, then I did another
> > orthographic shot and saved the last heightfield.
> Maybe it's better to have the whole scene and apply that gradient texture
> to all objects (?) This way you don't loose heightfield quality. The only
> problem can arise here - a lack of memory for the herd of horses :)
As I'm only in the early tests I did it this way because it was much
quicker. It's also much easier to tweak the gradient texture when you know
the exact size of the object. But if I save the first height_fields in
resolution 3000x3000, it should be enough, no? That'll take a lot of memory
too, though..
-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
> See the post in p.b.s.-f. group with subject 'Tree + Snow' posted on 1/29/03
> and example image in this group (p.b.i) with the same subject.
>
> In the future I'm going to bundle TOMTREEm.inc with POV-Tree
> together with leaf and seamless bark image maps for UV-mapping.
>
> Gena.
>
Thanks!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Hertel wrote:
>>>Is there need for much more detail?
>>>
>>Usually more details - better ;)
The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup being
only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'teststpaul05.jpg' (67 KB)
Preview of image 'teststpaul05.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ib Rasmussen wrote:
> The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup being
> only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.
Wow! Very impressive!
I think it's the best architectual CG object I've ever seen.
Are you still working on it? I'd like to add it to my changes and
render the scene (hopefully this week).
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
> I think it's the best architectual CG object I've ever seen.
Well, thank you, but I hope not. I have done at least two other churches
with a lot more precision and detail :)
> Are you still working on it? I'd like to add it to my changes and
> render the scene (hopefully this week).
I have some minor adjustments to do, and I would like to try and fit it
into the scene as closely to the painting as possible. Have you done any
changes to the camera since your last posted version?
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ib:
It really is incredible. I admire you patience and good eye
for proportion and detail.
Aaron
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ib Rasmussen wrote:
> Well, thank you, but I hope not. I have done at least two other churches
> with a lot more precision and detail :)
Yeh, I know. But I like this one more, I don't know why :)
What do you think about textures? I could suggest you some
image maps for dome and walls. I know that you are POV-Ray
purist and don't like any image maps :) but I think image maps
will look more real-life than procedural textures.
> Have you done any
> changes to the camera since your last posted version?
No.
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gena wrote:
> What do you think about textures? I could suggest you some
> image maps for dome and walls. I know that you are POV-Ray
> purist and don't like any image maps :) but I think image maps
> will look more real-life than procedural textures.
I was hoping I could leave the texturing to you, because I can't get
anything to look right with assumed_gamma 1. I'm going to clean up my
texture use to as few as possible, and declare them all at the beginning
of the file, so it should be easy to change them.
>>Have you done any
>>changes to the camera since your last posted version?
>
> No.
Good, the I will take the latest version and try and fit the model to
the painting, before I post it.
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The tympanum is now ready for your heightfield. The angles endedup
being
> only 26 deg, I hope that does not affect your work too much.
Not at all, and that's an incredible model you've created!
Sadly I've not been able to do much work on my part lately, been a busy
week in RL(TM). What I've done is created some objects (helmet, sword,
some cloth) in Wings3D and added them to the figures in Poser, in
addition to repose the things. I've also done what Gena suggested and
included all the figures in the scene, thus only produsing one
height_field. I think I'm also going to do some manual editing to the
image to increase the details in some places.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'hf_final.jpg' (11 KB)
Preview of image 'hf_final.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
