Here it is again. I consider it as final unless you find major bugs in it.
I could not realize many of your suggestions (and some I could not even
try), but anybody who commented on the earlier versions really helped me a
lot. It made a lacking scene much better.

I want to thank Alf Peake again for posting the fibonacci code, Christophe
Bouffartique for the loose straw and Jerôme Livenais for the bird model.

What do you think about it now?

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'verwaltung - final.jpg' (83 KB)

Preview of image 'verwaltung - final.jpg'

The light could be a bit brighter, but otherwise, this is one excellent
render! Uh, also, did you use radiosity or did you fake it? It seems to me
that the normal shouldn't disappear so much because of the shadow of the
bucket.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3aa15128@news.povray.org>, Marc-Hendrik Bremer says...
> Here it is again. I consider it as final unless you find major bugs in it.
> I could not realize many of your suggestions (and some I could not even
> try), but anybody who commented on the earlier versions really helped me a
> lot. It made a lacking scene much better.
> 
> I want to thank Alf Peake again for posting the fibonacci code, Christophe
> Bouffartique for the loose straw and Jerôme Livenais for the bird model.
> 
> What do you think about it now?
> 
> Marc-Hendrik

I like the scene very much. To my taste the whole image is on the dark 
side and increasing the contrast (with PhotoShop e.g.) does it a lot of 
good. Unless of course you wanted it to be in 'dark' light..? :)
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

Very impressive!

"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3aa15128@news.povray.org...
> Here it is again. I consider it as final unless you find major bugs in it.
> I could not realize many of your suggestions (and some I could not even
> try), but anybody who commented on the earlier versions really helped me a
> lot. It made a lacking scene much better.
>
> I want to thank Alf Peake again for posting the fibonacci code, Christophe
> Bouffartique for the loose straw and Jerôme Livenais for the bird model.
>
> What do you think about it now?
>
> Marc-Hendrik
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
> 
> Here it is again. I consider it as final unless you find major bugs in it.
> I could not realize many of your suggestions (and some I could not even
> try), but anybody who commented on the earlier versions really helped me a
> lot. It made a lacking scene much better.
> 
> I want to thank Alf Peake again for posting the fibonacci code, Christophe
> Bouffartique for the loose straw and Jerôme Livenais for the bird model.
> 
> What do you think about it now?
> 

Turned out very well, maybe somewhat dark, making the light source a
little brighter could help.

A larger version would be great too.

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

Nice revisions.  The birds were exactly what you needed to liven it up a
little.  The broom and the hay wagon are great too.  The brightness is
alright on my monitor, but I have my monitor set really bright all the time.
My advice to you now is to load it up on a few other computers to see how
others see it.  You brightened up the scene with a bit more yellow light,
didn't you?  Whatever you did to the light source, I can tell a difference
now (especially on the well).  Anyway, good job.  Just watch the gamma for
people on darker computers.

Stephen Bell

"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3aa15128@news.povray.org...
> Here it is again. I consider it as final unless you find major bugs in it.
> I could not realize many of your suggestions (and some I could not even
> try), but anybody who commented on the earlier versions really helped me a
> lot. It made a lacking scene much better.
>
> I want to thank Alf Peake again for posting the fibonacci code, Christophe
> Bouffartique for the loose straw and Jerôme Livenais for the bird model.
>
> What do you think about it now?
>
> Marc-Hendrik
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Bell schrieb in Nachricht <3aa16c07@news.povray.org>...
>Nice revisions.

Thanks.

>The birds were exactly what you needed to liven it up a
>little.  The broom and the hay wagon are great too.  The brightness is
>alright on my monitor, but I have my monitor set really bright all the
time.

Well, I just made a small test render with the light intensity increased by
50% and it came out much "sunnier" I'll make a better quality version
tommorow and decide afterwards.

>My advice to you now is to load it up on a few other computers to see how
>others see it.  You brightened up the scene with a bit more yellow light,
>didn't you?  Whatever you did to the light source, I can tell a difference
>now (especially on the well).

Yes I removed <1,1,0.8> by <1.1,1.1,0.7>.

>Anyway, good job.  Just watch the gamma for
>people on darker computers.

Yeah, I should have thought about it earlier. I render always at
assumed_gama 1 with a display_gamma of 1.6. That's probably what causes all
this trouble, I think.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann schrieb in Nachricht <3AA16A0F.6E8EE047@gmx.de>...
>
>Turned out very well, maybe somewhat dark, making the light source a
>little brighter could help.
>

I'll try a version with 50% brighter light_source tomorrow

>A larger version would be great too.
>

I'm planning a 1024x768 version for printing (and perhaps as my
windows-wallpaper).

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Tony[B] schrieb in Nachricht <3aa15c8d@news.povray.org>...
>The light could be a bit brighter, but otherwise, this is one excellent
>render!

Thanks! I'll try a brigther version tommorow.

>Uh, also, did you use radiosity or did you fake it? It seems to me
>that the normal shouldn't disappear so much because of the shadow of the
>bucket.

It is radiosity but not a normal. It's a granite pigment function on an
Isosurface. I think it vanishes because it's not that deep.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Dave Blandston schrieb in Nachricht <3aa16652@news.povray.org>...
>Very impressive!


Thank you!

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Sander schrieb ...
>
>I like the scene very much. To my taste the whole image is on the dark
>side and increasing the contrast (with PhotoShop e.g.) does it a lot of
>good. Unless of course you wanted it to be in 'dark' light..? :)
>--
>Regards,  Sander

OK OK, you all got me. I'll try a brighter version tomorrow. It might not
help, since I'm using assumed_gamma 1 and display_gamma 1.6.

Thanks,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

> A larger version would be great too.

If your computer is slower than mine, I wouldn't mind helping you render,
it's not like I have anything really great of my own to render. :) :(

Post a reply to this message

> Thanks! I'll try a brigther version tommorow.

Cool.

> It is radiosity but not a normal. It's a granite pigment function on an
> Isosurface. I think it vanishes because it's not that deep.

OK. It's nice to know you're not cheating. :)

Post a reply to this message

Tony[B] schrieb in Nachricht <3aa193d6@news.povray.org>...
>> A larger version would be great too.
>
>If your computer is slower than mine, I wouldn't mind helping you render,
>it's not like I have anything really great of my own to render. :) :(
>

Thanks, but this scene does not take all to long (3 hours for a 640x480) on
my PII 450 MHz. I'll make the bigger version overnight, that should not take
more than 12 hours, I think.

Thanks again for the offer,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
> 
> Thanks, but this scene does not take all to long (3 hours for a 640x480) on
> my PII 450 MHz. I'll make the bigger version overnight, that should not take
> more than 12 hours, I think.

I'm sure we could increase that :-)

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 schrieb in Nachricht <3AA23504.E1B7CE31@gmx.de>...
>
>
>Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, but this scene does not take all to long (3 hours for a 640x480)
on
>> my PII 450 MHz. I'll make the bigger version overnight, that should not
take
>> more than 12 hours, I think.
>
>I'm sure we could increase that :-)
>


Easily - some smooth media should do the job :-)

There is one thing I'm thinking about for a while. If I would 'fill some
water' (a rippled disc or another isosurface) in my bucket and use photons -
would I get a noticeable result an the bucket itself, the bird or the upper
part of the well? I'll probably have to try one day, but I think I'll wait
until I have bought myself a faster computer. Should also increase the
render time quite a bit.

The new version is finished BTW you can have a look at
http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg

Is it sunny enough?

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

OK, the brighter version is finished. Have a look at
http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg
It's about 140 kb. Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

OK OK, you all got me. I'll try a brighter version tomorrow. It might not
help, since I'm using assumed_gamma 1 and display_gamma 1.6.

Thanks,

Marc-Hendrik
------------------

Hmmmm . . . I thought that was what the whole assumed_gamma,
display_gamma thing was about . . . that if you constructed your
.pov file using assumed_gamma 1.0 . . . then it would render with
the same brightness on anyone's machine as long as they also used
assumed = 1.0 and had their display_gamma set for their machine.
Or . . . am I still missing something . . . ???
**
Y?

Post a reply to this message

Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.

Marc-Hendrik
-----------------
Works for me . . .

Very nice pic . . . am inspired to contunue to find uses for that Fib
pattern.
I really like all of your stone textures, esp the tiles on the roof of the
well.
And I wanted to ask you where you got those birds and if that code is
available somewhere.

Now that you have it in a final version . . . I have some suggestions :)
hehe
not much really . . . just noticed that you use the same brick pattern in
each
of the brick portions . . . and thought that in future versions you might
want
to alter the color pattern so they don't end up looking identical.
That's it tho . . . a very pleasing scene . . . feels nice and warm . . .
can almost
feel the sun hitting me on the back . . .
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

>Hmmmm . . . I thought that was what the whole assumed_gamma,
>display_gamma thing was about . . . that if you constructed your
>.pov file using assumed_gamma 1.0 . . . then it would render with
>the same brightness on anyone's machine as long as they also used
>assumed = 1.0 and had their display_gamma set for their machine.
>Or . . . am I still missing something . . . ???


That's how I read it too - but only if you rerender the scene on your
system. Since Gamma-Information is not stored in the imagefile, there is no
way for the displaying system to know "how it was meant".

But I think all this "too dark"-shouts were meant more in another direction:
the image did not look like sunshine. I didn't notice that before I made the
newer version with 50% a stronger light_source. Have a look at the new file
... oh I see you did that already.

Kari Kivisalo advised me once to set assumed_gamma always to 1.0 and set the
display_gamma to the correct value. He said, those who know what to do can
adjust there viewer accordingly (I should have mentioned that I'm using
assumed_gamma 1.0, though). As I know nobody who seems to understand more of
this topic, I'll stick to his advice.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

yooper schrieb in Nachricht <3aa2638f@news.povray.org>...
>Very nice pic . . . am inspired to contunue to find uses for that Fib
>pattern.

Thank you. That Fib Pattern is very good for this scene cause it gives it a
"real world" touch, I think. You won't expect a place be paved in rows and
collums and this pattern breaks the straigth lines to. That adds much to the
realism IMO.

>I really like all of your stone textures, esp the tiles on the roof of the
>well.

I'll post a poorly documented code snipped for the roof parts later this
day. It's basicaly a iso box+cylinder to which I added a agate pigemt
function. The code is not at all optimal (I intersected the whole roof part
with a box to trimm it).

>And I wanted to ask you where you got those birds and if that code is
>available somewhere.
>
Let me see, there is a link from Gilles Trans "The making of the Wet-Bird",
as Geoff Wedig told me. Its
http://www.chez.com/jrlivenais/vdesprit/gift/gift_eng.htm. It's a bit
difficult to texture it (I still could not figure out how to uv-map it, so
that I can rotate the bird), but it's no imposible task. If you want the
used image_map and my version of the bird, just ask.

>Now that you have it in a final version . . . I have some suggestions :)
>hehe
>not much really . . . just noticed that you use the same brick pattern in
>each
>of the brick portions . . . and thought that in future versions you might
>want
>to alter the color pattern so they don't end up looking identical.

Hrmph - so finaly someone did notice it :-) It would not be that difficult
to change that (I would just have to take a differend part of the brick
pattern), but as this whole iso-brick-patten got quite complicate I just
could not convince me that it's neccessary :-)

>That's it tho . . . a very pleasing scene . . . feels nice and warm . . .
>can almost
>feel the sun hitting me on the back . . .


Don't know how the weather is at your place, but we have snow here in the
middle of Germany - some sun on the back would be nice ...

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo advised me once to set assumed_gamma always to 1.0 and set the
display_gamma to the correct value. He said, those who know what to do can
adjust there viewer accordingly (I should have mentioned that I'm using
assumed_gamma 1.0, though). As I know nobody who seems to understand more of
this topic, I'll stick to his advice.

Marc-Hendrik
------
Yup . . . that's the same thing Alf told me in my Fib Beads thread and I've
read
up on it and have it set up correctly now.  And so . . . any scene rendered
with
that assumed_gamma set to 1.0 should then work everywhere.
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

> I'll post a poorly documented code snipped for the roof parts later this
> day.

Tanks . . .

> Let me see, there is a link from Gilles Trans "The making of the
Wet-Bird",
> as Geoff Wedig told me. Its
> http://www.chez.com/jrlivenais/vdesprit/gift/gift_eng.htm. It's a bit
> difficult to texture it (I still could not figure out how to uv-map it, so
> that I can rotate the bird), but it's no imposible task. If you want the
> used image_map and my version of the bird, just ask.

I will go get it and play with it for a while . . . will get back to you if
I
can't make any progress with it.

> Don't know how the weather is at your place, but we have snow here in the
> middle of Germany - some sun on the back would be nice ...

> Marc-Hendrik

just now getting some sun and a few days of 50F weather here . . .
still snow on the ground but it's going fast. Spring is in the air. . .
feels great.
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

It looks more complete, but I kinda liked the higher color temp of the old
one, looked like it was in a colder climate. Great work, the detail is
amazing!

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

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:

> OK, the brighter version is finished. Have a look at
> http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg
> It's about 140 kb. Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
> something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.

I wasn't expecting it to very much, but the change really does help...

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

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>
> Kari Kivisalo advised me once to set assumed_gamma always to 1.0 and set the
> display_gamma to the correct value. He said, those who know what to do can
> adjust there viewer accordingly (I should have mentioned that I'm using
> assumed_gamma 1.0, though). As I know nobody who seems to understand more of
> this topic, I'll stick to his advice.

The above setting will produce correct image on that particular monitor.
Since your display gamma is 1.6 the image will appear darker on most
monitors. This is not a pov specific issue. Every image you edit on your
system will look too dark to others. If you want to give a hint how the
image should look just mention it's gamma 1.6. Or just apply additional
2.2/1.6 = 1.37 correction in an image editor before publishing to get
a more standard (sRGB) brightness distribution. Remember that most people
don't bother adjusting anything for a single picture so it's better to
follow the standard when publishing.

If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.


______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo                                  http://www.kivisalo.net

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:

> If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
> standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.

I recently viewed my website on one of the macs in the media center at school.
Aah! I was blinded! I hope I don't have radiation poisoning now.

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

Post a reply to this message

Gamma correction isn't a problem if you store your files in PNG format. It
stores gamma information with the image information.

D.J.

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3AA30A2E.3BE3200C@faricy.net...
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> > If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
> > standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.
>
> I recently viewed my website on one of the macs in the media center at
school.
> Aah! I was blinded! I hope I don't have radiation poisoning now.
>
> --
> David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
>

Post a reply to this message

A 1024x768 version of the scene is now available at
http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnen1024x768.jpg.
(219k)

I was myself surprised how much details are visible on this bigger version.
I really love the way, POV works and that you are able to make as large
pictures as you want out of one sourcecode.

Marc-Hendrik




Marc-Hendrik Bremer schrieb in Nachricht <3aa23e22@news.povray.org>...
>
>OK, the brighter version is finished. Have a look at
>http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnenhell.jpg
>It's about 140 kb. Does the link work? It's the first time I uploaded
>something to my webspace, so if something is wrong please tell me.
>
>Marc-Hendrik
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Really? That would be great! (But Jpg is of course smaller in most cases.)

Marc-Hendrik

D.J. Brown schrieb in Nachricht <3aa37c27$1@news.povray.org>...
>Gamma correction isn't a problem if you store your files in PNG format. It
>stores gamma information with the image information.
>
>D.J.

Post a reply to this message

I'll try to keep that in mind. But wouldn't that also mean, that most images
should be to bright on my system? I did not notice that, yet. It seems to
me, that more of them are to dark. May be of course that the my/human eye is
more tolerant against brightness ...

Marc-Hendrik

Kari Kivisalo schrieb in Nachricht <3AA29DE8.8043F496@kivisalo.net>...
>The above setting will produce correct image on that particular monitor.
>Since your display gamma is 1.6 the image will appear darker on most
>monitors. This is not a pov specific issue. Every image you edit on your
>system will look too dark to others. If you want to give a hint how the
>image should look just mention it's gamma 1.6. Or just apply additional
>2.2/1.6 = 1.37 correction in an image editor before publishing to get
>a more standard (sRGB) brightness distribution. Remember that most people
>don't bother adjusting anything for a single picture so it's better to
>follow the standard when publishing.
>
>If the people viewing your images don't adjust their viewers to the
>standard it's their loss and you can ignore them.

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine schrieb in Nachricht <3AA288A1.E45A4DA4@faricy.net>...
>
>I wasn't expecting it to very much, but the change really does help...


Yes it does. Sometimes I should just do even more trial and error. If people
did not insist that it was to dark, I never would have screwed the
light_source up that much.

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

I was myself surprised how much details are visible on this bigger version.
I really love the way, POV works and that you are able to make as large
pictures as you want out of one sourcecode.

Marc-Hendrik
------------------
Lookin' good . . . I'll have to spend some more time to look at all of the
details . . .  hmmmm . . .
wonder what a 1280x1024 would show (wink, wink, nudge, nudge ;)
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

"D.J. Brown" wrote:

> Gamma correction isn't a problem if you store your files in PNG format. It
> stores gamma information with the image information.

Lossless can only get so small. Besides, if Mac can't follow the [darn]
standard, why should *I* adapt, when 90% of the world will see it right
anyway? Couldn't they just make Mac browsers compensate for that? (Oh, I
forgot, software engineering is a lost art.)

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

Post a reply to this message

yooper schrieb in Nachricht <3aa3d429@news.povray.org>...
>Lookin' good . . . I'll have to spend some more time to look at all of the
>details . . .  hmmmm . . .
>wonder what a 1280x1024 would show (wink, wink, nudge, nudge ;)
>**
>Y


Hm, can't see that much more details in this version, but here you are :-)

http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnen1280x1024.jpg

Marc-Hendrik

P.S. Did you find the code for the roof in p.t.s-f?

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:


> yooper schrieb in Nachricht <3aa3d429@news.povray.org>...
>>Lookin' good . . . I'll have to spend some more time to look at all of the
>>details . . .  hmmmm . . .
>>wonder what a 1280x1024 would show (wink, wink, nudge, nudge ;)
>>**
>>Y


> Hm, can't see that much more details in this version, but here you are :-)

> http://marc-hendrik.bremer.bei.t-online.de/bilder/brunnen1280x1024.jpg

Oh, wow.  The birds are beautiful.  I like the cart too.  ?How was the hay
done?  Some complex isosurface or a whole bunch?  Media?  Also, how was the
irrgular stone in the back wall above the arch done?  I've been wanting to
do something like that for awhile, now.

Inquiring minds want to know.

It looks smashing, though.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig schrieb in Nachricht <3aa4db94@news.povray.org>...

>Oh, wow.  The birds are beautiful.

Want the uv-image-map? I still could not figure out how to rotate the bird
when it is uv-mapped. The image simply does not rotate with it. But if you
just use it the way it is or switch it by scale <-1,1,1> it works good. Oh
and you can rotate by the z-axis (as you can see).

>I like the cart too.  ?How was the hay
>done?
>Some complex isosurface or a whole bunch?  Media?

350 bunches of the "loose straw" by Christophe
Bouffartique randomly positioned in a box and rotated. I shrinked the box at
the upper end to make the whole think look more natural.

>Also, how was the irrgular stone in the back wall above the arch done?
I've been wanting to
>do something like that for awhile, now.
>

That wall? Oh, that one was easy. Its just an Iso with a
crackle-pigment-pattern. To make it look at least a bit more natural you
have to scale it down in y-direction. Actualy I don't like that much, 'cause
it just to random. People don't make such walls. They take rawly rectancular
stones, which they fit together in a somewhat ordered random way. there are
at least some horizontal lines in such a wall. I tried metric 1 crackle
ones -that was rectancular, but not at all ordered. I'm currently thinking
about a way to combine the brick pattern and the crackle pattern, but I
don#t know if it leads anywhere.

>Inquiring minds want to know.


There is nothing wrong about that.

>
>It looks smashing, though.
>

Thanks,

Post a reply to this message

Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:


> Geoff Wedig schrieb in Nachricht <3aa4db94@news.povray.org>...

>>Oh, wow.  The birds are beautiful.

> Want the uv-image-map? I still could not figure out how to rotate the bird
> when it is uv-mapped. The image simply does not rotate with it. But if you
> just use it the way it is or switch it by scale <-1,1,1> it works good. Oh
> and you can rotate by the z-axis (as you can see).

Maybe.  I don't currently have any bird projects, but I might have a use for
it.  I'll let you know.

> That wall? Oh, that one was easy. Its just an Iso with a
> crackle-pigment-pattern. To make it look at least a bit more natural you
> have to scale it down in y-direction. Actualy I don't like that much, 'cause
> it just to random. People don't make such walls.

Hmm, when I was in Europe, I saw a lot of walls like that.  There isn't much
choice when all you have is irregular stones.

 They take rawly rectancular
> stones, which they fit together in a somewhat ordered random way. there are
> at least some horizontal lines in such a wall. I tried metric 1 crackle
> ones -that was rectancular, but not at all ordered. I'm currently thinking
> about a way to combine the brick pattern and the crackle pattern, but I
> don#t know if it leads anywhere.

Consider the following:

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-12-31/summonin.jpg

and

http://darwin.cwru.edu/~wedig/summer/summer.png

Both sets of walls were made with my isw code (isosurface stone walls)  It
allows for placement of roughly rectangular blocks, but also will morph them
into cones and tubelike structures.  Any modification surface can be used
upon the blocks, and they're all independently textured.

So regular stones aren't a big deal to me. ;)

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

P.S. Did you find the code for the roof in p.t.s-f?
----------
Yes I did . . . thank you sir . . . and for the large pic ;)
Haven't have time to play with it yet . . .
**
Y

Post a reply to this message

You know, I think that my making the sky whiter and the light a little bit
whiter too, you'd have an even more photorealistic render. It's great,
though! Very good work Marc. :)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3AA45F73.BE86104F@faricy.net>, David Fontaine 
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> Lossless can only get so small. Besides, if Mac can't follow the [darn]
> standard, why should *I* adapt, when 90% of the world will see it right
> anyway? Couldn't they just make Mac browsers compensate for that? (Oh, I
> forgot, software engineering is a lost art.)

Um, *what* standard? The only standard I know of is the measurement of 
gamma itself, there is no standard gamma value. If you are referring to 
"sRGB", well, how long has that been around, and who has decided it is 
the standard?

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Geoff Wedig schrieb in Nachricht <3aa51ab6@news.povray.org>...

> They take rawly rectancular
>> stones, which they fit together in a somewhat ordered random way. there
are
>> at least some horizontal lines in such a wall. I tried metric 1 crackle
>> ones -that was rectancular, but not at all ordered. I'm currently
thinking
>> about a way to combine the brick pattern and the crackle pattern, but I
>> don#t know if it leads anywhere.

>
>So regular stones aren't a big deal to me. ;)
>


Your ISW seems to be useful but actually I'm looking more for a wall which
looks roughly like the attached picture. Perhaps not that wrecked, but a bit
like that. You see, the stones a roughly trimmed and they are chosen, so
everything fit's together. I would take irregular roughly rectangular stones
too though.

Don't know if I will come ever near that, but I will have to try :-)

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mauer.jpg' (13 KB)

Preview of image 'mauer.jpg'

Marc-Hendrik Bremer <Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> Your ISW seems to be useful but actually I'm looking more for a wall which
> looks roughly like the attached picture. Perhaps not that wrecked, but a bit
> like that. You see, the stones a roughly trimmed and they are chosen, so
> everything fit's together. I would take irregular roughly rectangular stones
> too though.

> Don't know if I will come ever near that, but I will have to try :-)

Are you speaking of the irrgularity in placement, or the shape of the
stones.  The shape of the stones I can do.  The pictures I posted have
relatively small perturbations, but it can be larger.  Placement is a bit
trickier, I'm afraid.  It looks like that wall uses the large roughly
rectagles shimmied with lots of thin stones method.  I might be able to get
that effect with a isosurface based upon the crackle pattern with a granite
purturbation.

I think my code could do it, but it'd take some tweaking.  Hmmm.


Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3aa23d5f@news.povray.org>, "Marc-Hendrik Bremer" 
<Mar### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> There is one thing I'm thinking about for a while. If I would 'fill 
> some water' (a rippled disc or another isosurface) in my bucket and 
> use photons - would I get a noticeable result an the bucket itself, 
> the bird or the upper part of the well?

I just tried it out...I used a cylinder with a normal for the water. 
I've included one bucket with a reduced water level to demonstrate the 
effect in the bucket, and another to demonstrate the effect on a nearby 
wall.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Bucket.jpeg.jpg' (13 KB) Download 'Bucket2.jpeg.jpg' (7 KB)

Preview of image 'Bucket.jpeg.jpg'

Preview of image 'Bucket2.jpeg.jpg'

That is so pretty, please post the source! :)

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff schrieb in Nachricht ...

>I just tried it out...I used a cylinder with a normal for the water.
>I've included one bucket with a reduced water level to demonstrate the
>effect in the bucket, and another to demonstrate the effect on a nearby
>wall.


Oh, thank you! I couldn't get me to try it, but these results are quite
promising, so I should probably try.
Any "secrets" you can share about the photon settings - I did not try
photons yet. I think it shouldn't increase the rendertime that much if I
shoot the photons only on the water. Or is that wrong?
The water is just a clear cylinder with a normal and a bit reflection, is
it?

Thanks for sharing,

Marc-Hendrik

Post a reply to this message

In article <chrishuff-41AB21.18080913032001@news.povray.org>, Chris Huff 
says...
> 
> I just tried it out...I used a cylinder with a normal for the water. 
> I've included one bucket with a reduced water level to demonstrate the 
> effect in the bucket, and another to demonstrate the effect on a nearby 
> wall.
> 
You _are_ a wizard! 

-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message

Post a reply to this message