Hi there,

still the same fern, sorry if it get's boring.
According to your advices I added some radiosity, made the sprays weaker and
watered it a bit, and therefore it grew a bit :-)
Since I adapted the auto-LOD settings to show full detail in the front (to
reduce the sharp edges) the include file is now approx. 5 times larger than
the old ones (which is 73MB right now). Maybe an overkill but once the file
is created, parsing time is only few minutes.

Have fun!
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fern_rad2.jpg' (61 KB)

Preview of image 'fern_rad2.jpg'

"Jürgen Scharfy" wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> still the same fern, sorry if it get's boring.
> According to your advices I added some radiosity, made the sprays weaker and
> watered it a bit, and therefore it grew a bit :-)
> Since I adapted the auto-LOD settings to show full detail in the front (to
> reduce the sharp edges) the include file is now approx. 5 times larger than
> the old ones (which is 73MB right now). Maybe an overkill but once the file
> is created, parsing time is only few minutes.

I had no time to comment on your previous postings, the geometry looks
really good meanwhile only the strong differences in the length of the
leafs seem unrealistic, when do you plan to post the code?

For radiosity you should add a sky or a different environent.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 06 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Still not green enough, but it's does look better! the vase/pot is 
better too.

Is

Jürgen Scharfy wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> still the same fern, sorry if it get's boring.
> According to your advices I added some radiosity, made the sprays weaker and
> watered it a bit, and therefore it grew a bit :-)
> Since I adapted the auto-LOD settings to show full detail in the front (to
> reduce the sharp edges) the include file is now approx. 5 times larger than
> the old ones (which is 73MB right now). Maybe an overkill but once the file
> is created, parsing time is only few minutes.
> 
> Have fun!
> regards
> SY
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

*gasp*  So you're saying this one plant is made using a 73 megabyte file?
Yow!  Still, I like the crinkly leaves it has, plenty of detail.
I agree with others opinions about the watering needed, it still looks pale
to me.  Texturing can be tough to do though so no one can blame you for
that.
Think you need to group leaves nearer as they get smaller, although I
haven't checked against a real fern.

bob h

Post a reply to this message

With the radiosity you can really tell that the modeling is first rate.


Jürgen Scharfy <sch### [at] surfeuat> wrote in message
news:3c62553b@news.povray.org...
>

Post a reply to this message

Hi Christoph,

> I had no time to comment on your previous postings, the geometry looks

I already missed your postings :-)

> really good meanwhile only the strong differences in the length of the
> leafs seem unrealistic, when do you plan to post the code?

I must admit that I conecntrated more on the individual sprays and their
leaves than on assembling a complete fern. However, the size of the wings is
a parameter so you may create any style of fern you like.
I planned to post the code as soon as I have something like a manual for
using it. Up to now there is (beside the comments in the code) no
documentation for it. Especially the auto-LOD is not yet really easy to use.

But if you're interested in it, I can post the code as it is together with
the scene file I used to create this image.

> For radiosity you should add a sky or a different environent.

I am not shure if I mentioned it but the final scene will use only few
sprays and not a complete fern. Additionally there will be no vase or
whatever. These renders are plain tests.

THX for feedback,
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

> Still not green enough, but it's does look better! the vase/pot is
> better too.
>
> Is

*lol* first time it is too green and therefore plastic-like, then it is too
fade and now not green enough *g*
I wonder if I ever get the colour right? :-)
Ok. back to the roots and paint it again....

THX for feedback,
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

> *gasp*  So you're saying this one plant is made using a 73 megabyte file?

Ups. Yes, that's what I said. But as mentioned it is overkill. The last pics
I posted used max. 16MB which included 25 wings. For this pic I used 33
wings and increased the detail. But I exaggregated it a bit. The front-sided
wings have a level of detail which is enough for a closeup shot. For this
pic I think approx. 25MB would have been enough without any (visible) loss
of detail.

However, since it is generated automatically it doesn't really matter. Just
to speed up parsing (assuming that you have enough memory)

> Yow!  Still, I like the crinkly leaves it has, plenty of detail.

Indeed I concentrated on the details since I want to use a closeup of it in
the final scene. This pic still doesn't show all possible details!
And I'm still not completely satisfied with it. There is still a bug in it I
haven't fixed yet and some ideas for the textures arewaiting to be
implemented. As well as a "super-high-detail" mode needs to be done (for the
mentioned closeup).
But for this pic it is enough .-)

> I agree with others opinions about the watering needed, it still looks
pale
> to me.  Texturing can be tough to do though so no one can blame you for
> that.

Obviously :-)
But I think it is getting closer. It needs to be a bit lighter, more similar
to "sunlight - shining - through". I'm working on it.

> Think you need to group leaves nearer as they get smaller, although I
> haven't checked against a real fern.

You are definitevely right and the macro takes care about this. The
difference is just 0.5cm which is obviously not enough. I'll increase that.
But as I saw on my fern in the living-room (the famous one) the difference
is not that big as I expected. Surprising.

THX for feedback,
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

> With the radiosity you can really tell that the modeling is first rate.

THX!

In fact it is pure math! For example the "wings" use a set of functions
which have only one input: the wing's "age" and return a 3dimensional curve
with knots whereto the leaves can be added, with respect to gravity and wing
style (hanging or on the ground). Things like that is the only modelling I
did. No part of the plant is hand-dressed. Even the colours are computed
according to the age. Maybe I'm just mad? .-) Obviously.
Anyway, I like this plant.

regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

The added detail makes a huge difference in my opinion.  I think the 
coloring is quite believable.

Jürgen Scharfy wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> still the same fern, sorry if it get's boring.
> According to your advices I added some radiosity, made the sprays weaker and
> watered it a bit, and therefore it grew a bit :-)
> Since I adapted the auto-LOD settings to show full detail in the front (to
> reduce the sharp edges) the include file is now approx. 5 times larger than
> the old ones (which is 73MB right now). Maybe an overkill but once the file
> is created, parsing time is only few minutes.
> 
> Have fun!
> regards
> SY
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

"Jürgen Scharfy" wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> But if you're interested in it, I can post the code as it is together with
> the scene file I used to create this image.
> 

Of course having some documentation would be better, but anything is
better than nothing...

> > For radiosity you should add a sky or a different environent.
> 
> I am not shure if I mentioned it but the final scene will use only few
> sprays and not a complete fern. Additionally there will be no vase or
> whatever. These renders are plain tests.

I just wanted to say that without a sky or other environment you won't get
a good effect from radiosity.  Whether complete fern or not is not
important.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 06 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Hi,

let's make a vote for the colour discussion:
Left hand image is a fern in the shadow (like on the floor of a wood).
Right hand image is like a fern in the sun (the sun is peeking through the
trees).

which one do you prefer?

regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'comparison.jpg' (48 KB)

Preview of image 'comparison.jpg'

"Jürgen Scharfy" <sch### [at] surfeuat> wrote in message
news:3c63a713@news.povray.org...
>
> let's make a vote for the colour discussion:
> Left hand image is a fern in the shadow (like on the floor of a wood).
> Right hand image is like a fern in the sun (the sun is peeking through the
> trees).
>
> which one do you prefer?

Right side, sunlit.  However, to me the colors are too faded.  But I keep
trying to go by memory of this type of fern I always saw in the wild while
living in western Washington.
I found a gallery of fern photos and Royal Fern seems to be closest I saw
there to yours.
http://www.ct-botanical-society.org/ferns/osmundarega.html
The color in the photo isn't as I recall it either though, far too
emerald-like.  It's not easy to convey color in writing.  If I were to say a
color that I think fits it would probably be like Forest Green or Green4 as
seen at:
http://users.rcn.com/giant.interport//COLOR/1ColorSpecifier.html

Another pic of similar fern but also emerald-colored (to me):
http://www.ct-botanical-society.org/ferns/aspleniumplat.html

bob h

Post a reply to this message

My first thought was "right", but on closer inspection, the left one
looks more real somehow. Hmmm...
I think I'll go with left.

"Jürgen Scharfy" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> let's make a vote for the colour discussion:
> Left hand image is a fern in the shadow (like on the floor of a wood).
> Right hand image is like a fern in the sun (the sun is peeking through the
> trees).


-- 
signature{
  "Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
  site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}

Post a reply to this message

> I found a gallery of fern photos and Royal Fern seems to be closest I saw
> there to yours.

Thanks for your interesting links. It's amazing how many sites one can find
for ferns :-)
Indeed the pic's you linked are more similar to the left trace. This is not
really surprising for me since the color matches almost exactly the fern I
have in my living room.
I think it really depends on the surroundings. The leaves are a bit
translucent and get brighter when sun is coming up and are darker in case of
a shadowed place.

Recently I saw an other fern in a restaurant which was as yellowish-green as
the lightes parts of the right trace. Pretty much difference in colouring
obviously...

thanks for voting :-)
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

> My first thought was "right", but on closer inspection, the left one
> looks more real somehow. Hmmm...
> I think I'll go with left.


I have the same problem :-)
Indeed the vote seems to be unfair. As already discussed the colour depends
heavily on the light situation. For the given scene the left one is more
realistic since it is a quite dark area around the fern which makes the
leaves dark.

The right one would be very realistic in a wood scene, between trees with
bright sunrays breaking through the trees (in fact this is the scene I want
to model for the final pic).
Try to imagine this environment and you'll see that it is more realistic
than the left one.
Strange, isn't it?

thanks for voting,
regards
SY

Post a reply to this message

Right, I think you are right about imagining the context. When that is done,
the right looks more appropriate.

Jürgen Scharfy <sch### [at] surfeuat> wrote in message
news:3c63a713@news.povray.org...

Post a reply to this message

I prefer the right hand one and I still think it looks un-watered. but 
the right-hand one looks more real.

Is

Jürgen Scharfy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> let's make a vote for the colour discussion:
> Left hand image is a fern in the shadow (like on the floor of a wood).
> Right hand image is like a fern in the sun (the sun is peeking through the
> trees).
> 
> which one do you prefer?
> 
> regards
> SY
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

> which one do you prefer?

right


--

Rick

Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

The right. its more realistic than the left one.


Gary


Jürgen Scharfy <sch### [at] surfeuat> wrote in message
news:3c63a713@news.povray.org...
> Hi,
>
> let's make a vote for the colour discussion:
> Left hand image is a fern in the shadow (like on the floor of a wood).
> Right hand image is like a fern in the sun (the sun is peeking through the
> trees).
>
> which one do you prefer?
>
> regards
> SY
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Jürgen Scharfy wrote:


> which one do you prefer?


The sunlit one on the right. It looks a bit healthier. (I think they 
could both do with a bit of water :).

/Ib

Post a reply to this message