 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These are the clouds you've heard me talk and talk about from time to
time... They could be better, but that's about as good as I can get them...
unless someone invents a special scattering type better suited for
simulating clouds. This uses type 5, because being able to control both
exctinction and eccentricity is key to getting them right. This rendered in
7 minutes, 11 seconds, with me doing other stuff on the PC (400MHz Pentium
II). Enjoy.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'klauds.jpg' (11 KB)
Preview of image 'klauds.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These are the real clouds I was working on... I posted the one-layer method
before. That layer was only the top layer high above. This includes the
lower layer now. The render time shot up slightly, because the bottom layer
is thicker and requires more intervals (more, as a matter of fact, than I
used in this render). It took 7h, 36m 48s to render at this size. Is that
OK? Or is it too slow? You can always remove the top layer and fake it on
the sky_sphere... I think. (But you'd rather know it's really there,
wouldn't you? :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'klauds2.jpg' (30 KB)
Preview of image 'klauds2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is looking *very* nice, much better than the images you sent me a few
days ago :) Perhaps you might consider adding a slightly deeper blue to the
top of the skysphere (if that's what you're using for the blue background),
so that the blue doesn't look completely uniform at the top of the image,
since there is already a lighter horizon area.
They look great though, and very realistic IMO, I think that it's worth the
render time when it comes out looking like that!
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> These are the real clouds I was working on... I posted the one-layer method
> before. That layer was only the top layer high above. This includes the
> lower layer now. The render time shot up slightly, because the bottom layer
> is thicker and requires more intervals (more, as a matter of fact, than I
> used in this render). It took 7h, 36m 48s to render at this size. Is that
> OK? Or is it too slow? You can always remove the top layer and fake it on
> the sky_sphere... I think. (But you'd rather know it's really there,
> wouldn't you? :)
>
Shot up slightly??? From 7 minutes, 11 seconds to 7h, 36m 48s is
_slightly_?
Or am I mistaken?
Sorry to say, but I wouldn't call these clouds realistic. (Unfortunately
I can't put my finger on problem. shape? or colouring? : greenish-blue,
from scattering probably, I don't think that it could be seen in
reality.)
But for artistical pictures, which do not aim for photorealism, these
clouds could be very useful.
Light source seems to be quite close to clouds, as shadows seem to be
too big for given clouds. Or are there clouds, which are not visible?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>Sorry to say, but I wouldn't call these clouds realistic. (Unfortunately
>I can't put my finger on problem. shape? or colouring? : greenish-blue,
>from scattering probably, I don't think that it could be seen in
>reality.)
>
Had the same problem, so while walking to the groceries I looked up a lot.
Tony, it is as if your picture is blurred. Although clouds should look
'fluffy' their boundaries are quite sharp. Maybe a steeper gradient near
the edges of the pattern will make them 'sharper'.
>But for artistical pictures, which do not aim for photorealism, these
>clouds could be very useful.
Agree.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow Tony, them's nice and fluffy.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeropps uklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
5:19pm up 9 days, 4:40, 3 users, load average: 1.07, 1.06, 1.02
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This is looking *very* nice, much better than the images you sent me a few
> days ago :)
Excellent. =)
>Perhaps you might consider adding a slightly deeper blue to the
> top of the skysphere (if that's what you're using for the blue
background),
> so that the blue doesn't look completely uniform at the top of the image,
> since there is already a lighter horizon area.
I'll give it a try...
> They look great though, and very realistic IMO, I think that it's worth
the
> render time when it comes out looking like that!
Super! :) I'm very glad you think that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Shot up slightly??? From 7 minutes, 11 seconds to 7h, 36m 48s is
> _slightly_? Or am I mistaken?
Good point. OK: The render time shot up dramatically, when we compare a
300x200 render with 15 intervals to a 720x480 render with 15+40 intervals
(soon to be 15+45 intervals).
> Sorry to say, but I wouldn't call these clouds realistic. (Unfortunately
> I can't put my finger on problem. shape? or colouring? : greenish-blue,
> from scattering probably, I don't think that it could be seen in
> reality.)
Hmm... I could adjust the color curve in Photoshop after rendering...
> But for artistical pictures, which do not aim for photorealism, these
> clouds could be very useful.
OK, at least I've acheived something.
> Light source seems to be quite close to clouds, as shadows seem to be
> too big for given clouds. Or are there clouds, which are not visible?
The clouds are contained in 2 individual boxes. The first one goes
rom -<1000000,0,1000000> to <1000000,3000,1000000>, and is 4500 units above
the ground plane. The second one goes from -<1000000,0,1000000> to
<1000000,2000,1000000>, and is 15000 units above the ground plane. The
light_source is at y*10000000, and the camera is at <10000,400,-30000>. I
moved it up that high in order to see if the shadows were showing up,
something which when closer to the plane is hard to confirm. What do you
suggest?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Had the same problem, so while walking to the groceries I looked up a lot.
> Tony, it is as if your picture is blurred. Although clouds should look
> 'fluffy' their boundaries are quite sharp. Maybe a steeper gradient near
> the edges of the pattern will make them 'sharper'.
I can do that. I'll adjust this and re-render... but mind you: there are
"generic" realistic clouds, and there are "real" realistic clouds. The first
ones are what we would identify in a render as "realistic", and the second
ones are the ones we might happen to see in real life, and complain about
how "fake" they look. :)
> >But for artistical pictures, which do not aim for photorealism, these
> >clouds could be very useful.
>
> Agreed.
Cool. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Wow Tony, them's nice and fluffy.
Yup. Ah just aim tuh please y'all! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
