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

For some reason, this is way better than the last one. VERY realistic...

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?
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IRTC-WIP41.jpg
> 
> Content-Type:
> 
> image/jpeg
> Content-Encoding:
> 
> x-uuencode
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:00:33 +0300, Sigmund Kyrre Aas
<as### [at] studntnuno> wrote:

>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
 ------

eh, LEFT of course.

sig
-- 
ICQ 74734588

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3b27bca3@news.povray.org...
> hi all,
>[...]
> Comments?
>
 > Norbert

Yeah, you got it! I'm speechless...

Post a reply to this message

Wow, wasn't sure you could make it better.  :)

Hmm, my only criticism, the sand looks a tad pinkish.

-- 
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

>Comments?


>Norbert



>[Attachment: IRTC-WIP41.jpg]

        Very cool.  Pictures like this make me think of giving up
on raytracing 'cause I'll never get this good.  :-)   I wonder
how it would look if you used your skills and techniques to make
a fall (Autumn) landscape?


Pete

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:3b27bca3@news.povray.org...
> hi all,
> 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.

Try scattering media. The only reason the sky seems to give off light is because
the atmosphere refracts and scatters the light from the sun, resulting in the
light haze you usually see on the horizon and the blue look of the sky.
I'm not sure what that would do to the render time though.

- Nekar

Post a reply to this message

I kind of like the previous plants. That grassy stuff. This still looks very
nice, though. Good work.

Post a reply to this message