 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi all,
my third version. Eight different deciduous trees substitute the pines.
Beside that I made only some minor changes.
Trees were mainly modeled with XFrog.
All the 161 trees consume "only" 185 MByte. With Maketree, Tomtree or
Splinetree, I would need two or three times as much memory.
The whole scene needs about 519 MByte.
I wasted a lot of time to integrate the trees in the macros. A loop with
"switch" and "case" didn´t worked or it did only for the background (strange
behavior!). So I had to create eight nearly identical macros for ech of the
trees. Very boring, but it works now.
Suggestions?
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'irtc-WIP3.jpg' (132 KB)
Preview of image 'irtc-WIP3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
yikes - this is starting to get very scary - 2 HQ images in one day.... i
think i may have to start working less and poving more...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a suggestion. Stop uploading photographs! ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's fabulous, but... it's as though POV's crand is seen a lot within the
trees and the mud. On this LCD screen (a notebook) it's probably
exagerated. Makes it look more noisy than natural, to me anyway.
Light and shadow is terrific.
Hadn't heard of XFrog before, I see it's at www.greenworks.de
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
too much honor for me - thanks anyway
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5 com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b1fbd0c$1@news.povray.org...
> yikes - this is starting to get very scary - 2 HQ images in one day.... i
> think i may have to start working less and poving more...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lol !
pretty encouraging comment.
"Ben Birdsey" <cla### [at] mailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B1FD711.3D660519@mail.com...
>
> I have a suggestion. Stop uploading photographs! ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You are right, the pic looks grainy.
The main problem are the many leafes. Most of the trees have leafes with uv
mapped images as texture.
This type of leaf textures tend to look like a uniform green mass in
shadowed parts.
Therefore I reduced the ambient values and raised the normal component of
the leaf textures.
Radiosity would be a good idea in such a situation, but the render time
would increase to several months even with simple settings.
The result is the grainy look. Perhaps better antialiasing will help.
I´ll add a fog under the water surface too. Hopefully this will reduce the
grainy look of the mud.
Norbert
"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b1fe19b@news.povray.org...
> It's fabulous, but... it's as though POV's crand is seen a lot within the
> trees and the mud. On this LCD screen (a notebook) it's probably
> exagerated. Makes it look more noisy than natural, to me anyway.
> Light and shadow is terrific.
> Hadn't heard of XFrog before, I see it's at www.greenworks.de
>
> Bob H.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> my third version. Eight different deciduous trees substitute the pines.
> Beside that I made only some minor changes.
> Trees were mainly modeled with XFrog.
> All the 161 trees consume "only" 185 MByte. With Maketree, Tomtree or
> Splinetree, I would need two or three times as much memory.
> The whole scene needs about 519 MByte.
> I wasted a lot of time to integrate the trees in the macros. A loop with
> "switch" and "case" didnīt worked or it did only for the background (strange
> behavior!). So I had to create eight nearly identical macros for ech of the
> trees. Very boring, but it works now.
>
> Suggestions?
>
The foreground i definitely liked better in the last version, the shadowed
parts still look quite flat, you probably can't do much about that without
using radiosity... Maybe try a shadowless fill light on the right.
I would at least try radiosity with some low quality settings (as long as
you have enough memory of course) You probably can gain a lot of speed
with hierarchical grouping of the trees (unless you have already done this
of course)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3b1ff4c3@news.povray.org...
> You are right, the pic looks grainy.
> The main problem are the many leafes. Most of the trees have leafes with uv
> mapped images as texture.
> This type of leaf textures tend to look like a uniform green mass in
> shadowed parts.
> Therefore I reduced the ambient values and raised the normal component of
> the leaf textures.
> Radiosity would be a good idea in such a situation, but the render time
> would increase to several months even with simple settings
I think if you added a slight reflection to the leaves it would help a lot.
Great stuff.
- Nekar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph, what is a hierarchical grouping?
You mentioned this in your "water tunnel final" thread and I am very
interested but unsuspecting.
I tried radiosity my second version and the most simple settings. Rendering
time increased by a factor of twenty without any visible advantage.
I will try a fill light as you suggest.
> The foreground i definitely liked better in the last version, the shadowed
> parts still look quite flat, you probably can't do much about that without
> using radiosity... Maybe try a shadowless fill light on the right.
>
> I would at least try radiosity with some low quality settings (as long as
> you have enough memory of course) You probably can gain a lot of speed
> with hierarchical grouping of the trees (unless you have already done this
> of course)
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That would really help. But it wouldn´t work with this type of leafes.
They are uv mapped from an image with alpha channel on a triangle.
If I would allow reflection, the whole triangle would reflect.
Its the same with specularity. You see the whole triangle.
The same disadvantage is true for "splinetrees".
Norbert
> I think if you added a slight reflection to the leaves it would help a
lot.
>
> Great stuff.
>
> - Nekar
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Christoph, what is a hierarchical grouping?
> You mentioned this in your "water tunnel final" thread and I am very
> interested but unsuspecting.
If you group the trees with union{} in a tree-like structure this can
speed up things a lot. For example combine two trees standing near to
each other and combine two of these 'doubles' and so on. If the trees are
placed in a (more or less) regular grid, a recursive macro would be best
for that, otherwise things can be more difficult.
I'm not sure how much can be gained in this case, so maybe it's not worth
the efforts.
>
> I tried radiosity my second version and the most simple settings. Rendering
> time increased by a factor of twenty without any visible advantage.
> I will try a fill light as you suggest.
>
Adding radiosity and no visible effect - very strange. For experiments i
would use a 'light' version without the grass and reflections and only a
few trees BTW.
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 Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:11:07 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote:
>Suggestions?
Superb image!
But I'd expect trees in such a wet environment to have much
larger leaves, trees that have small leaves tend to be in
dry locations where the leaves have to be small to reduce
water loss.
Your methods seem to be serving you well.
--
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
3:42pm up 126 days, 16:32, 2 users, load average: 1.01, 1.02, 1.00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
> <snip>
> Suggestions?
I love it just the way it is.
But can you render me up a 2" flat pebble, I dying to see if I can bounce it
all the way to the other bank.
Insects and Fish spring to mind, but I'm not sure if either would be
noticable in the scene; I'll let you decide.
--
Duncan Gray
(warning: may contain traces of nut)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The last one looked better IMO. Looks like jpeg stuff. Can you link to
a lower compression version?
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, I don´t have a place to upload a png or a better jpg file.
But by changing textures and adding a fill light the results are better now.
It is also necessary to render with at least AA 0.1.
And yes, there are some jpeg artefacts (notice to me: 42 % quality is too
low).
Tomorrow I will post a better fourth version hopefully.
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B22FE0A.651AB9DB@faricy.net...
> The last one looked better IMO. Looks like jpeg stuff. Can you link to
> a lower compression version?
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thanks.
The mud is obviously lacking things like stones, twigs or leaves.
They will be added soon.
I will have to add insects to avoid zero points in concept definitively.
Up to now I don´t have a convincing solution how to be on topic.
"Duncan Gray" <dun### [at] eclipsecouk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b2132bd@news.povray.org...
>
> I love it just the way it is.
>
> But can you render me up a 2" flat pebble, I dying to see if I can bounce
it
> all the way to the other bank.
>
> Insects and Fish spring to mind, but I'm not sure if either would be
> noticable in the scene; I'll let you decide.
>
> --
> Duncan Gray
> (warning: may contain traces of nut)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I live in middle europe in bavaria. We call temporarily flooded areas in
german "Auwälder". I don´t know the english word.
As far as I know, in such areas grow trees like willows, alders, sorts of
poplars, sometimes as shrubs. I have to admit my trees aren´t very similar
to them.
Nethertheless the leaves should be in the range of 5 to 15 cm ( 2 to 6
inch).
Perhaps you have experiences with a more tropic climate?
Norbert
"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:11:07 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Superb image!
>
> But I'd expect trees in such a wet environment to have much
> larger leaves, trees that have small leaves tend to be in
> dry locations where the leaves have to be small to reduce
> water loss.
>
> Your methods seem to be serving you well.
>
> --
> 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
>
> 3:42pm up 126 days, 16:32, 2 users, load average: 1.01, 1.02, 1.00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
> I will have to add insects to avoid zero points in concept definitively.
> Up to now I donīt have a convincing solution how to be on topic.
Butterflies ?
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And yes, there are some jpeg artefacts (notice to me: 42 % quality is too
> low).
> Tomorrow I will post a better fourth version hopefully.
Okay. I see that cross hatch pattern in it. No way that came from POV.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B2388C2.94A0BBCB@pacbell.net>, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>
wrote:
> Butterflies ?
I'm thinking of insects that come from an aquatic nymphal/pupal form:
mayflies, caddis flies, stoneflies, etc. And some swarms of midges.
--
Christopher James Huff - chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
