 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi all,
a minor update for my random nature pic.
I changed lights, some textures and added or exchanged some plants.
peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
parse time 3h 17 m
render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
Not very good, but it looks less artificial now.
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 aren´t
allowed, as you know.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'irtc-WIP4.jpg' (247 KB)
Preview of image 'irtc-WIP4.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b252b63@news.povray.org>, Norbert Kern says...
> hi all,
>
> a minor update for my random nature pic.
> I changed lights, some textures and added or exchanged some plants.
>
> peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
> parse time 3h 17 m
> render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
>
> Not very good, but it looks less artificial now.
> 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 aren´t
> allowed, as you know.
>
> Norbert
>
Man! I find this great!! Stunning, how it seems to be alive!!!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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 aren´t
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> a minor update for my random nature pic.
> I changed lights, some textures and added or exchanged some plants.
>
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] 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, mon Dieu! That looks so realistic... Wow...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great! Very realistic! Love it!
Would it be possible to add dragonflies and/or butterflies?
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoocom))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:33:55 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote:
>hi all,
>
>a minor update for my random nature pic.
>I changed lights, some textures and added or exchanged some plants.
Wow stunning as others have said. The grass could do with considerably
more colour variation, and the same could be said for the leaves of the
trees. Mixed in with all those beautifully green plants and grass you'd
also have some dead leaves and dead grass (at all times of the year).
>peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
>parse time 3h 17 m
>render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
Still got time for plenty of test renders before the closing date then.
--
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
1:17am up 130 days, 2:07, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.06, 1.03
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Lin wrote:
>
> 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".
--
Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
flabreque | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
@ | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
videotron.ca | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
| motion.
- Stolen from Badger's .sig file
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> 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.
The lighting seems good now, although some areas in the background still
look a bit noisy (especially in the shadows).
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> "Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> 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
aren´t
> > 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.
I thought whole night about a solution. I´ll post it in a seperate thread.
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.
What do you mean with "That´s it??" ?
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
definitively there have to be insects and they should be visible.
I had two solutions in mind.
First a part of a tree with bark and a bug climbing the trunk.
Second a big flower like a hemlock and a bug and ants.
But I couldn´t integrate these parts. It always detracted the whole scene.
So I have to choose a flying insect.
Since I have no experience with motion blur, I have a butterfly (or two) in
my mind.
Norbert
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3B25634B.6EF1277F@videotron.ca...
>
>
> Daniel Lin wrote:
> >
> > 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".
>
> --
> Francois Labreque | It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it
> flabreque | is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
> @ | the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
> videotron.ca | warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in
> | motion.
> - Stolen from Badger's .sig file
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
very kind
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b254d69@news.povray.org...
> Oh, mon Dieu! That looks so realistic... Wow...
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
my wife has studied agronomics and she swears, that all leafs can be intact
in spring.
But you are right, there should be some dead plants, rotten leaves and so
on. Perhaps some memory is free in the end.
Colour variation is very memory intensive and up to now, I have no
convincing solution to this problem.
Norbert
"Steve" <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain...
>
> Wow stunning as others have said. The grass could do with considerably
> more colour variation, and the same could be said for the leaves of the
> trees. Mixed in with all those beautifully green plants and grass you'd
> also have some dead leaves and dead grass (at all times of the year).
>
> >peak mem 669 MB (near collapse)
> >parse time 3h 17 m
> >render time (AA0.1) 17 h 5 m
>
> Still got time for plenty of test renders before the closing date then.
>
> --
> 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
>
> 1:17am up 130 days, 2:07, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.06, 1.03
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You are right, leaves are looking flat and planar arranged.
Its a part of the main problem. I cannot use radiosity because of the render
time. I tried radiosity with the most simple settings available.
After 10 h it was on line 3 (radiosity calculation took only 10 min).
But I think I have found a solution to "too homogene green parts" problem. I
will post it seperately.
Some parts are still noisy despite AA0.1.
I suggest I have to render with AA 0.04 to avoid this.
Norbert
p.s. your homepage is one of my favourites. I would love to see some new
pictures from you.
"Margus Ramst" <mar### [at] peakeduee> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b256c73@news.povray.org...
>
> 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.
> The lighting seems good now, although some areas in the background still
> look a bit noisy (especially in the shadows).
>
> --
> Margus Ramst
>
> Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
> TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
> Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
too much honor for me I think, but thanks anyway.
Norbert
"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] skynetbe> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b25d601$1@news.povray.org...
> Impressive, to say the least. I'm speechless =)
>
> Fabien.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lol
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b25da3e@news.povray.org...
> This is much better than the last - very very sickening
>
>
> --
> Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
don´t fear, I haven´t made any organic modeling so far.
I would be happy if I could model a spider like yours.
Norbert
"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b262655@news.povray.org...
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I´ll email the png file to you.
Megapov makes the object plavcement from an image (not a HF) with the
"eval_pigment" command. Not one object is placed by hand in my little scene.
Norbert
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b26312c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> I suggest I have to render with AA 0.04 to avoid this.
Your suggestion has been noted :)
>
> p.s. your homepage is one of my favourites. I would love to see some new
> pictures from you.
>
Thank you. I must admit it is an embarrassment that I haven't updated
the page for half a year already. Hoping to rectify this some time after
Midsummer when my current Real Life issues should finally clear up one
way or the other.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:32:07 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote:
>my wife has studied agronomics and she swears, that all leafs can be intact
>in spring.
I meant that there'll allways be dead leaves on the ground, mixed in with
the green grass and other plants.
--
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
3:10am up 131 days, 4:00, 2 users, load average: 1.18, 1.11, 1.09
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> 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).
>
That explains why you are not able to use radiosity, memory use would be
much more intensive then and swapping is quite impossible, even if the
total amount of memory used is not larger.
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 Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:51:44 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote...
> I use good old photoshop. Is it good at compression?
Not compared to some other utils out there.
An old DOS package called SEA can give better looking results with a
smaller file size.
Look on http://www.photodex.com
There's also a thread here in p.b.i as follows which may help you.
Always assuming you can find it :)
Subject: Help with JPEG conversion
From: Kevin Jackson-Mead <jac### [at] mindspringcom>
Newsgroups: povray.binaries.images
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:46:03 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.6.75
Message-ID: <39A6DB0B.72686220@mindspring.com>
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I agree with your comments about the fill light.
> I thought whole night about a solution. I´ll post it in a seperate thread.
>
> 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).
Not to poke holes in your dreams, but why not just go for the 1.33Ghz
Athlon, and save a bit of money towards the memory for the sake of 66mhz
(What am I saying?! My first PC capable of running POV only had
66Mhz...)
Oh well, just a thought.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(little bit OT)
I said "dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon".
But let us be rational. I have had renders which lasted up to 3 weeks.
Povray makes good use of frequency increase. Sometimes I´m sitting in front
of my monitor and counting minutes for rendering a single line.
I swear, every second counts.
Therefore I will pay about 100 Euro (ca. 83 $) for 5 % speed gain. This are
only 4 to 5 % of the whole desktop. I think, its worth.
Norbert
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1591cb5bf1a9006e989949@news.povray.org...
>
> Not to poke holes in your dreams, but why not just go for the 1.33Ghz
> Athlon, and save a bit of money towards the memory for the sake of 66mhz
> (What am I saying?! My first PC capable of running POV only had
> 66Mhz...)
>
> Oh well, just a thought.
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
picture and not an insects picture.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:20:49 +0200, you wrote:
>definitively there have to be insects and they should be visible.
Indeed. But you should somehow put the focus on them. Insects are
small. If you want to have one close-up, and still have a realistic
picture, you'll have to use focal blur... and that would be a great
loss, considering all the details that will be lost.
>I had two solutions in mind.
>First a part of a tree with bark and a bug climbing the trunk.
Or an insect half-drowned in a sap drop? That would make for an
interesting raytracing showcase. Maybe when you buy that Athlon...
>Second a big flower like a hemlock and a bug and ants.
How about a branch in close-up and a spider web with a spider and a
fly in it? Or maybe a caterpillar pretending to be a piece of bark? Or
a cocoons of sorts. Two fighting (or mating) praying beetles. You can
also try a cliche, a fish catching a mosquito.
>But I couldnīt integrate these parts. It always detracted the whole scene.
That's precisely what I am pointing my finger at. You are obviously
very good in coding, modelling, texture and lighting. You have to be
at least as good in composition to make the picture so that the focus
is on the insect, it is large enough, and none of the detail is lost.
>So I have to choose a flying insect.
See my other suggestions. Maybe you could use a little spider hanging
on a thread somewhere in the lower-right part of the image.
>Since I have no experience with motion blur, I have a butterfly (or two) in
>my mind.
Try putting them on a water lily, two of them. The bright green and
white of the lily would make a great background for some vivid yellow
or red. Just a suggestion.
Once again, outstanding work!
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:32:07 +0200, "Norbert Kern"
<nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>Colour variation is very memory intensive and up to now, I have no
>convincing solution to this problem.
Put the whole grass in a union (not the triangles, the meshes :) ) and
give them an appropriate pigment. I think large-scale granite, or a
perlin-like average of a few bozos, would work great.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:19:32 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote...
> (little bit OT)
> I said "dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon".
> But let us be rational. I have had renders which lasted up to 3 weeks.
> Povray makes good use of frequency increase. Sometimes I´m sitting in front
> of my monitor and counting minutes for rendering a single line.
> I swear, every second counts.
> Therefore I will pay about 100 Euro (ca. 83 $) for 5 % speed gain. This are
> only 4 to 5 % of the whole desktop. I think, its worth.
I suppose it's a matter of personal choice in the matter.
And on that note I shall shut up :)
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> What do you mean with "Thatīs it??" ?
I would have expected it to use even more resources...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-06-14 19:42, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
> picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
> natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
> the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
> picture and not an insects picture.
Hmm ... how about about an insect picture without any insects visible?
Change the lighting so that it looks like early evening, and everybody
who doesn't hear the buzzing[1] of mosquitos lacks imagination :-)
hp
[1] Ok, my English lets me down, and my dictionaries, too. What do you
call the sound that a mosquito makes?
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Wenn Buecher einen Verstaerker haetten,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sollte der Leser hier die Boxen voll
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | aufdrehen.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Hauke Reddmann über "Der Opal"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:15:49 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote...
> On 2001-06-14 19:42, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
> > picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
> > natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
> > the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
> > picture and not an insects picture.
>
> Hmm ... how about about an insect picture without any insects visible?
> Change the lighting so that it looks like early evening, and everybody
> who doesn't hear the buzzing[1] of mosquitos lacks imagination :-)
>
> hp
>
> [1] Ok, my English lets me down, and my dictionaries, too. What do you
> call the sound that a mosquito makes?
Bloody annoying.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
