 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Sir Charles W Shults III
Subject: Re: Please help me compare some grass
Date: 29 Mar 2002 21:25:04
Message: <3ca52200$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The second image looks much better. At first glance, it is hard to say just
why, but I think it is because the blades show the right amount of curvature
versus width. If you had longer grass, the curvature in the first picture would
look more realistic. An individual blade of grass is fairly stiff, and does not
usually exhibit a great deal of bending unless exposed to high winds.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree, it is the wave that puts me off the first one, I think.
Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:
> The second image looks much better. At first glance, it is hard to
> say just
> why, but I think it is because the blades show the right amount of
> curvature
> versus width. If you had longer grass, the curvature in the first picture
> would
> look more realistic. An individual blade of grass is fairly stiff, and
> does not usually exhibit a great deal of bending unless exposed to high
> winds.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in message
news:3ca509a8@news.povray.org...
> In which of these two images does the grass look more real?
>
> 1: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/include/fgrass.jpg
>
> 2: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/include/fgrass2.jpg
>
> ...and why? ...and what can be improved?
I think the curved one is less realistic. It seems forced. The straight
one is too straight, but within the realm of possible. The curvy one would
be right for 2 ft high grass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I made a modified version of the second image, where the grass is a bit more
turbulated, and a bit lighter in color. How is the third image compared to
the others?
1: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/include/fgrass.jpg
2: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/include/fgrass2.jpg
3: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/3d/include/fgrass3.jpg
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
/me still likes the 2nd image most ...
I'm not sure, if you see so much "pattern" in a closeup of the grass ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nr 2 is best.. Less waves and more stiff.. Both textures are best at a
distance - not surprising - but really good, at a distance! The straight
ones are *not* too straight IMO.. Besides I wonder if not most blades should
wave almost in the same direction - either due to wind or the sun, that
attracts them.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Too much bending, and should be in the same direction.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I prefer the second image. It appears the blades have a more random length, and the
third appears to have forced curvature and seems
unnatural.
Grim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I would agree with Hugo.
Of the three, I liked #2 best.
I don't have a problem with the curvature of the grass in #'s 1 and 3, but I would
expect that larger regions of the field would have a more similar direction of the
curvature.
I'm not sure I'm being clear. Maybe this is better:
A large region (like a few square meters) should have most of the grass bending the
same general direction. A neighboring region could have most of the grass bending a
different direction, with a gradual shift in direction between the different regions.
Keep some randomness, of course, but less (or maybe a wider) turbulence.
The grass could even be laying down flat (from wind or rain) but it would mostly be
lying in the same general direction.
On a completely different note:
I thought that your technique was basically just "coloring" the ground to make it
look like grass. But then I saw on the horizon of the nearby knoll (on the left)
that the grass appears to rise above the surface. I'm just itching to have a look at
your technique.
--
Thomas Bates
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message news:3ca5cdd0$1@news.povray.org...
> Nr 2 is best.. Less waves and more stiff.. Both textures are best at a
> distance - not surprising - but really good, at a distance! The straight
> ones are *not* too straight IMO.. Besides I wonder if not most blades should
> wave almost in the same direction - either due to wind or the sun, that
> attracts them.
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>
> In which of these two images does the grass look more real?
>
> ...and why?
I prefer the second one.. not so wavy, and it seems to blend better in
the distance.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
