 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi all,
I got many encouraging statements regarding my last posting, thanks a lot.
Furthermore some of you mentioned too uniform textures, too bright or too
dark areas and so on.
Those critics were all right.
Radiosity would be a solution, but is too slow (probably too many objects).
All shadowed points with the same texture have the same brightness with
look like real nature.
The main problem is the sky, which illuminates shadowed parts in nature, but
not in povray (same is true for other raytracers, I think).
There is no such light definition in megapov or povray. But many lights
distributed on the sky should do the same.
The best uniform distribution of points on a sphere is like the 60 points on
buckminsterfullerene (like a football (soccer in U.S.)).
I took those coordinates, deleted the points below the ground (negative y
values.) Then I reduced the 30 lights to the most relevant 11, because with
30 lights test renders were too slow.
Render time is 6 times as high as with fill lights. but the result is much
better.
To speed the test render up, some plants were excluded.
Comments?
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'IRTC-WIP41.jpg' (186 KB)
Preview of image 'IRTC-WIP41.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Man! My canoe is almost ready for that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Comments?
I have a picture here that was taken by my brother when he went for a stage(?)
in the SiliconValley, he had to pass through a little park to go to his work and
that picture looks a lot like this rendered image!
--
|| 'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
|| 'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.'
--
Simon Lemieux (lem### [at] yahoo com)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Man! My canoe is almost ready for that...
I'll second that...
The sand looks a little weird, though.
--
Me (Daniel Lin (dli### [at] yahoocom))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b27bca3@news.povray.org>, Norbert Kern says...
> hi all,
>
> I got many encouraging statements regarding my last posting, thanks a lot.
> Furthermore some of you mentioned too uniform textures, too bright or too
> dark areas and so on.
> Those critics were all right.
> Radiosity would be a solution, but is too slow (probably too many objects).
> All shadowed points with the same texture have the same brightness with
> look like real nature.
> The main problem is the sky, which illuminates shadowed parts in nature, but
> not in povray (same is true for other raytracers, I think).
> There is no such light definition in megapov or povray. But many lights
> distributed on the sky should do the same.
> The best uniform distribution of points on a sphere is like the 60 points on
> buckminsterfullerene (like a football (soccer in U.S.)).
> I took those coordinates, deleted the points below the ground (negative y
> values.) Then I reduced the 30 lights to the most relevant 11, because with
> 30 lights test renders were too slow.
> Render time is 6 times as high as with fill lights. but the result is much
> better.
> To speed the test render up, some plants were excluded.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Norbert
>
As I said before, *stunning*, *very much alive*, and now even more so!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well man, I nearly can't believe it. It's one of the most beautiful 3D
images I've seen in my life (and I'm 37).
My wife has seen it and she couldn't believe it was 3D.
"It's a photograph", she said on an on.
I have had to show her your previous works to convince her.
I think Gilles has a rival (at last).
Very, very good works.
Congratulations.
Now you only need some insects and your are the winner.
Go for it.
Txemi Jendrix
tji### [at] euskalnetnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A truly stunning image!
Andy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not a lighting expert, but I'd say you have it about right.
I've been thinking recently about what makes the difference between
soemone who can do landscapes and someone who can't, and I've come
to the conclusion that it's about the lighting. I think that some
people are comfortable working with that kind of light and so are
able to make progress with a landscape scene, whereas someone like
myself has to work close up in a confined space because I just
wouldn't be able to light the vast area required for an outdoor
scene.
So now I'd say great you've sorted the lighting out, now press on
whith some other aspects of the scene like getting a better mix of
texturing for leaves and grasses etc.
This is all just my own opinion so don't take any of it to be
authoritative on the subject.
--
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
11:26pm up 132 days, 17 min, 2 users, load average: 1.12, 1.07, 1.02
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is very pretty! I especially like the water and the srubbery down
on the right. If I was to pick, I would say the closest leaves on the
ritght looks a bit stiff and could use som more randomness. The
shadows from the bumps in the sand are somewhat strong I think. Maybe
you could make the bumps smaller, cause the light in the rest of the
scene is too perfect to tamper with :)
sig
--
ICQ 74734588
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Utterly spectacular. High praise. I can feel the cool air coming off the water
and hear the bugs and birds whirring.
The only two cents I could add is the observation that creeks and pools tend to
have lots of leaves and seeds, etc floating in them, and this detritus tends to
accumulate in the stiller areas near the banks. Lots of insects, too, of
course, although these might only show in a supr hi-res view.
You really know your stuff.
DZ
Norbert Kern wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I got many encouraging statements regarding my last posting, thanks a lot.
> Furthermore some of you mentioned too uniform textures, too bright or too
> dark areas and so on.
> Those critics were all right.
> Radiosity would be a solution, but is too slow (probably too many objects).
> All shadowed points with the same texture have the same brightness with
> look like real nature.
> The main problem is the sky, which illuminates shadowed parts in nature, but
> not in povray (same is true for other raytracers, I think).
> There is no such light definition in megapov or povray. But many lights
> distributed on the sky should do the same.
> The best uniform distribution of points on a sphere is like the 60 points on
> buckminsterfullerene (like a football (soccer in U.S.)).
> I took those coordinates, deleted the points below the ground (negative y
> values.) Then I reduced the 30 lights to the most relevant 11, because with
> 30 lights test renders were too slow.
> Render time is 6 times as high as with fill lights. but the result is much
> better.
> To speed the test render up, some plants were excluded.
>
> Comments?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
