Hi Geoff,

Yes. I'm using MegaPov, but I'm not using
any radiosity. I tried it, but it was just way too
slow to render. I might try it again.

I'll try moving the light source around. Do you
think you should be able to see the trunk of the
tree in the shadows? I wasn't sure.  I think you
are right about it's position being the reason
for the flatness of the leaves. There's actually
quite a bit of phong for the leaves, but it just
won't show up. I'll try moving the camera
around just to take a look from overhead to
get a better idea of what's going on.

I'd love to see a detail shot of your rust, please
post.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's comments,
suggestions and help!
=Bob=

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3ac08970@news.povray.org...
: Much improved.  Shadows still need to be darker, IMO.  I like the flaky
: texture of the pump.  Have you considered using a slope map, so that the
: bottoms are rustier than the top segments?  I've had some good luck with
: making good rust that way (my IRTC entry uses rust a lot, but the details
: are too fine to see.  I can post an example if you like of a detail shot)
: This assumes you're using Mega, but from your radiosity (Is it
radiosity?),
: it certainly looks that way.
:
: The problem with the trees seems to be related to the sun (light source)
: being directly overhead, or nearly.  Maybe moving it in towards the
camera,
: so that things are shadowed behind themselves (I recommend at least 10
: degrees off, though, either left or right.  Directly in line with the
camera
: has its own problems) will help. Otherwise, all the leaves are in shadow
and
: so you only see their ambient color, resulting in flatness.
:
: Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Thanks D.J.,

Thank you for the compliments. Margus
mentioned the same kind of feeling about
it. It feels wonderful to have made something
that connects with others. Maybe we've all
been there?

Best regards...
=Bob=

"D.J. Brown" <ext### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3ac0b788$1@news.povray.org...
: Excellent artwork. I get a nastolgic feeling looking at this image; it's
: very earthy and organic. I can actually almost smell the thick perfume
that
: must hang in the air here. It has a certain something that I can't put my
: finger on, but it's managed to capture something. :)
: I can't wait to see what the final looks like!
: D.J.

Post a reply to this message

=Bob= wrote:
> 
> I'll try to tone down the roughness on
> the bricks a little, I think it needs some,
> but maybe I overdid it. 

No, not too strong, but too regular.  Maybe try granite or turbulent
crackle (slow!) instead.

> I have ambient and
> diffuse values of both 0.1 for the water.
> It's an isosurface with a bump normal.
> Maybe the ambient and diffuse values
> should be 0? 

Yes, probably, unless you want muddy water :-)
Maybe have a look at the water finish tutorial on my site.

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 Khaver,

I'll try that tonight. Going to be working
on getting the leaves looking good next.
There's only a simple normal on them now,
so I'll try something more sophisticated.

Thanks for your help!
=Bob=

"khaver" <kha### [at] netzeronet> wrote in message
news:3ac0ba72@news.povray.org...
[Deletions]
:  Bob,
: I think the render is great.  I would suggest a little noise on the tree
: leaf texture.  They look too much like paper cut-outs.
: Khaver

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3AC0C092.31636D8C@gmx.de...
> No, not too strong, but too regular.  Maybe try granite or turbulent
> crackle (slow!) instead.

Try a normal_map, start with ridiculously high values then reduce them! or
normal_maps within normal_maps
Here's an example

 normal{
  average normal_map{
   [0 ripples 500 scale <2, 55,10>/5 warp{turbulence .25}rotate y*-20
translate x*.5]
   [.5 ripples normal_map{[0 agate 5 scale <2, 5,10>/5][.5 wrinkles 5
scale<2, 5,10>/8]} rotate y*76]
   }
   scale.5
     }

BTW the pic is much improved.

Mick

Post a reply to this message

=Bob= <bob### [at] threestrandscom> wrote:

> Hi Geoff,

> Yes. I'm using MegaPov, but I'm not using
> any radiosity. I tried it, but it was just way too
> slow to render. I might try it again.

I may be giving up radiosity myself at this point.  It's taking *really*
long.


> I'll try moving the light source around. Do you
> think you should be able to see the trunk of the
> tree in the shadows? I wasn't sure.

Depends on what you mean.  The trunk should cast a shadow, certainly.  If
the part is already in a shadow, then the trunk shouldn't make it noticably
darker (well, in reality it would, slightly), but if it's itself the first
shadow object, it should be nice and dark.

  I think you
> are right about it's position being the reason
> for the flatness of the leaves. There's actually
> quite a bit of phong for the leaves, but it just
> won't show up. I'll try moving the camera
> around just to take a look from overhead to
> get a better idea of what's going on.

Some nice shadows, maybe even longish ones to the right (left?  No, right,
I'd think) might be nice.  Like you're seeing this place at/near sunset.  Sunset
is a twilight time, a time of change to something darker.  Might evoke the
sense of abandonment that you're working towards here.

Or maybe not.  Worth a shot, anyway.

> I'd love to see a detail shot of your rust, please
> post.


I'll see what I can do.  I got PVM to work on the computer here, so I'm
getting results much faster, but the radiosity is giving me trouble (part of
the reason I might skip it for this pic)  We'll see.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Nice pic, bob. I like the bricks. However I would up the contrast a
bit further. Best way to do that is adjusting the black value in
'Levels'. And mayve it would add to realism to make the wet bricks
darker.

sig
-- 
ICQ 74734588

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Mick,

I'll try the normal map tonight!
Really appreciate your help. I don't
know what I'd have without you.

Have a great day!
=Bob=


"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3ac0c9ad@news.povray.org...
:
: "Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
: news:3AC0C092.31636D8C@gmx.de...
: > No, not too strong, but too regular.  Maybe try granite or turbulent
: > crackle (slow!) instead.
:
: Try a normal_map, start with ridiculously high values then reduce them! or
: normal_maps within normal_maps
: Here's an example
:
:  normal{
:   average normal_map{
:    [0 ripples 500 scale <2, 55,10>/5 warp{turbulence .25}rotate y*-20
: translate x*.5]
:    [.5 ripples normal_map{[0 agate 5 scale <2, 5,10>/5][.5 wrinkles 5
: scale<2, 5,10>/8]} rotate y*76]
:    }
:    scale.5
:      }
:
: BTW the pic is much improved.
: Mick

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Sigmund,

I'll give it a go.
Thanks for all your help!
=Bob=

"Sigmund Kyrre Aas" <as### [at] studntnuno> wrote in message
news:sah1ctcsutigt0jmovbecvnfdp21jk1qub@4ax.com...
: Nice pic, bob. I like the bricks. However I would up the contrast a
: bit further. Best way to do that is adjusting the black value in
: 'Levels'. And mayve it would add to realism to make the wet bricks
: darker.
:
: sig
: --
: ICQ 74734588

Post a reply to this message

What I mean is, the trunk is both dark and in the
shadow of the tree. The grass and fence are
also in the shadow. Should we be able to discern
the trunk in the shadows? I thought so and was
trying to get the trunk to be at least somewhat
visible in the shadow, even if just a silhouette, but
it took alot of light and upping the ambient values
to get it to show up, that's when everything started
looking flat and washed out. I've reduced the ambient
values and now you really can't make out the tree
trunk anymore, but most of the other objects are looking
much better. So, as I get stronger shadows, the trunk
disappears into those shadows.

I don't mind that happening if it's considered the
appropriate view -- I just thought otherwise.

Thanks again!
=Bob=

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3ac0cfeb@news.povray.org...
[Deletions]

: > I'll try moving the light source around. Do you
: > think you should be able to see the trunk of the
: > tree in the shadows? I wasn't sure.
:
: Depends on what you mean.  The trunk should cast a shadow, certainly.  If
: the part is already in a shadow, then the trunk shouldn't make it
noticably
: darker (well, in reality it would, slightly), but if it's itself the first
: shadow object, it should be nice and dark.

[More deletions]

: Geoff

Post a reply to this message