 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Any more suggestions?
>
> [Image]
- Sandy and/or rocky beach. (the shore looks a bit weird as it is).
- Some rocks here and there
- bushes
- trees
- etc...
>
> --
> #macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
> rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
> ],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
> 7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
--
Francois Labreque | It's a combination of several fetishes:
flabreque | industrial robotics, female anatomy, and
@ | fluorescent light in that order.
videotron.ca | - Chris Cunningham
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Any more suggestions?
still needs that shubbery (ni!), and perhaps loose the lensflare
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Any more suggestions?
>
You don't like radiosity, do you? :-)
I know, it's slow, but i would at least try it...
Like Ken said, the sky looks quite purple, but i like the effect.
The difference in the clouds is quite subtle, but it looked better in the
first one IMO, of course this can be caused by the different picture size
too.
For the water i would try something different, the combination of a very
large scale and a very fine structure looks somewhat strange. Maybe use a
more linear structure for the large waves.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
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:
: You don't like radiosity, do you? :-)
: I know, it's slow, but i would at least try it...
Radiosity makes the landscape very blueish. That besides being slow as ****.
: The difference in the clouds is quite subtle, but it looked better in the
: first one IMO, of course this can be caused by the different picture size
: too.
I haven't changed the clouds in any way, so it must be the different
image size.
: For the water i would try something different, the combination of a very
: large scale and a very fine structure looks somewhat strange. Maybe use a
: more linear structure for the large waves.
I'm not quite sure about what you mean.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Radiosity makes the landscape very blueish. That besides being slow as ****.
>
I know - why should others have fast scenes if i don't have... ;-)
The bluish appearance is quite common if you add radiosity to a landscape
scene, modifying the textures and making the light source more intense can
help, of course you can also play with gray_threshold and brightness.
>
> I haven't changed the clouds in any way, so it must be the different
> image size.
The old one seems to have more grey in the center of the clouds, maybe the
lighting has changed?
>
> : For the water i would try something different, the combination of a very
> : large scale and a very fine structure looks somewhat strange. Maybe use a
> : more linear structure for the large waves.
>
> I'm not quite sure about what you mean.
>
Just try to scale the noise3d or whatever in one direction or use ripples,
marble, etc.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22 May 2001 06:43:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Any more suggestions?
>
Looks much better, now all you need is David Caradine (sp?)
walking through the hills.
--
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
11:07pm up 109 days, 23:55, 2 users, load average: 1.28, 1.39, 1.32
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The picture seems to have a mix of messages. Primarily it is saying: "I am a
landscape composed of a few basic elements, finely crafted, and emphisizing an
economy of means. It is a lovely image, technically, but it may be searching
for a reason to be. The three main elements: sky, water, and hills are all
fighting for attention. I think this is in part because they all make similar
contributions to the composition and are unified by a common scale and type
of texture. One or two of the elements must take a back seat. Personally,
the clouds would be the first thing I would work with.
Then the birds, sun glare, and lens flare seem thrown in to add interest. The
light effects add the most interest for me,... especially the lens flare
daring to divide the rectangle nearly in two. The birds are mundane, merely
signifying "sky" or "nature".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> : You don't like radiosity, do you? :-)
> : I know, it's slow, but i would at least try it...
>
> Radiosity makes the landscape very blueish. That besides being slow as ****.
Make your light_source a bit yellowy (it is in real life!) to counteract
the effect of the blue sky.
--
Francois Labreque | It's a combination of several fetishes:
flabreque | industrial robotics, female anatomy, and
@ | fluorescent light in that order.
videotron.ca | - Chris Cunningham
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A very nice image, but it feels empty. Try adding something to give it a
focus.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b0a42eb@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> Any more suggestions?
The water still doesn't look real IMHO.
There wasn't any wind here today, so I took a reference photo:
www.hoogi.de/lutz-peter/waves.jpg
I would simulate this with two layers of bozo, the smaller one about 1/10
the size of the big one, and scale the whole thing by 2 in one direction.
Also there are large patches of water wich are rougher than the rest,
because of local turbulences (no, not the POV-turbulence ;-)).
Perhaps this can be simulated by a third layer wich is even smaller in
scale and multiply its density with a very large bozo pattern.
So the resulting formular could be somthing like
y + bozo(x*.5,y,z) + 0.1*bozo(x*10*.5,y*10,z*10) +
0.05*bozo(x*30*.5,y*30,z*30)*bozo(x*0.01,y*0.01,z*0.01)
Everything is untested, so it may look good, or maybe totally crappy :-)
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
