 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> "Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-online de> wrote:
>
> > hi all,
> >
> > a minor update for my random nature pic. I changed lights, some textures
> > and added or exchanged some plants.
> >
>
> Only suggestion I can think of right now is to do something about the tree
> at the front left - the planar arrangement of the leaves makes it look
> somewhat fake from this angle.
Darn you, Margus, I was going to comment on that but you beat me to it.
I think the bio mass on the left side is a little to dense. A little
thinning would hurt either.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Impressive, to say the least. I'm speechless =)
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is much better than the last - very very sickening
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great pic! Very photorealistic (esp. the water).
My only suggestion is that the green color of the grass is maybe too uniform
(the green itself is a bit too saturated).
Terrific picture though.
Now add the insects (fear you're going to win... ;-)
JRG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is great! I would love for you to email me the original.
Just one question, I seem to recall that you made this as a self
arranging thing. IOW, that if you slapped another HF under it, it would
figure out the placement of items. Do I remember that correctly?
BTW, great use of yellowing as the longer blades of grass bend, very
realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thank you
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
>
> Man! I find this great!! Stunning, how it seems to be alive!!!
> --
> Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I use good old photoshop. Is it good at compression?
Norbert
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.158f403cc9c2fe6b989943@news.povray.org...
> > a minor update for my random nature pic.
> > I changed lights, some textures and added or exchanged some plants.
>
> Very pretty, and a definite improvement on the last image.
>
> > peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
>
> Ouch! My HDD is groaning just imagining the amount of thrashing that
> must have gone on...
>
> > Not very good, but it looks less artificial now.
>
> I beg to differ. At least as far as the first point goes.
>
> > As JRG in the foregoing thread did I rendered it in 1024*768 to show
more
> > detail. Some is lost through jpeg compression, but more than 250 kb
> > allowed, as you know.
>
> What are you using to do the compression? Some compressors can get
> better image quality than others for the same file size.
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi Christoph,
I agree with your comments about the fill light.
The problem with the grass is its need for memory. First aand second version
had 90000 blades. Now the scene uses 200 Mbyte less memory with "only" 48000
blades. I have defined 1 Gbyte swap space, so I have to be careful.
My old PII has 224 Mbyte ram.
The next model will be bought soon (dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon with 1 GB
DDR sdram).
Norbert
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B253914.F5601B91@gmx.de...
>
> The fill light is definitely an improvement, just a bit too strong maybe.
> The problem about fill lights is that they light everything equally and
> some parts too strong because of that. In megapov you could try to use
> light groups for individual lighting of the single trees, but that would
> be quite a lot of work.
>
> The texturing looks good, just the shadow on the water looks fairly dark,
> it's the darkest area in the whole scene, the grass in the shadow under
> the trees should probably be quite similarly dark.
>
> The ferns in the foreground part are not that good IMO, i think with only
> the grass it looks better.
>
> > peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
> > parse time 3h 17 m
> > render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
>
> How much physical memory does it have?
>
> 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 for your comment.
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B253FE8.70F539C9@faricy.net...
> Much better than the last. The detail comes out in the trees now.
>
> Norbert Kern wrote:
> >
> > peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
> > parse time 3h 17 m
> > render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
>
> That's it??
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Great! Very realistic! Love it!
> > Would it be possible to add dragonflies and/or butterflies?
>
> Patience! my friend! Patience! After all, the IRTC theme is "insects
> and spiders".
It's just that, in my opinion, dragonflies or butterflies in the picture
would look better than any other insects I could think of, if it's an image
for the IRTC. But I think it's great as is! The trees look terrific, the
leaves look terrific, and the grass looks pretty good. If you're pining for
something to do, try adding algae and/or fish to the water, but it's really
nice like it is now. The only bad things I see about it is that the trees
could use some more textured bark and the flowers could be made a little
more complex. But everything else is great!
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoocom)) who is getting to be very
repetitive...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
