 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 May 2002 15:16:40 -0500, "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholic org>
wrote:
>The only thing I think it needs is focal_blur. Other than that, superb job
>(as usual), Gilles.
>
I've attached two more quick Photoshop variations. The first one is
Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg:
This image simulates focal blur by selectively applying gaussian blur
to the areas behind the tree. I used an amount of "1" for the
gaussian blur. The effect is somewhat subtle. Higher amounts didn't
look like focal blur, but simply a poorly-focused image.
The second image is Not_4_Sale_Fog.jpg:
This is a simulation of fog, by applying a huge amount of gaussian
blur to the background areas behind the tree. I selected those areas
with Photoshop's lasso tool, and feathered the selection by 45 pixels.
The gaussian blur amount was set to "48", which is a LOT of blur.
These are just quick explorations what might be done, either within
POV-Ray itself, or in a post-process. I think the results are
interesting.
Oh, I should mention that Gilles himself thought it would be good to
post some of my comments here, as I had earlier sent him only private
emails. He thought that some of the information might be useful to the
rest of the newsgroup.
Later,
Glen
7no### [at] ezwvcom (Remove the numeral "7")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Not_4_Sale.jpg' (1 KB)
Download 'Not_4_Sale_fog.jpg' (102 KB)
Download 'Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg' (110 KB)
Preview of image 'Not_4_Sale_fog.jpg'
Preview of image 'Not_4_Sale_fb.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now that is one masterpiece!! Your amount of plants are higher than I would
dare, though. You mean, you're using 17000 unique meshes? That takes a lot
of memory. I would have sticked to 20, perhaps 30 different meshes and
reused them... Even in my wildest fantasy.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3ce2c948$1@news.povray.org...
> Now that is one masterpiece!! Your amount of plants are higher than I
would
> dare, though. You mean, you're using 17000 unique meshes? That takes a lot
> of memory. I would have sticked to 20, perhaps 30 different meshes and
> reused them... Even in my wildest fantasy.
In mine too :-) I wonder when I could have produced 17000 different meshes,
and where I could have stored them... No, it's just 10 or so different
meshes replicated thousands of times.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3CE2C54A.95E9A567@gmx.de...
> The small bush in the foreground looks a bit like a small scale version of
> the tree.
Hmm, I guess I'm not proficient yet with xfrog.
>
> Are all plants made with xfrog?
Yes. The tree and the dandelion were ready-made models (I just changed the
leaves on the trees). The others were created from scratch.
> i suppose this is a scaled version then? If not i wonder what aa settings
> you used, the more distant trees look nicely smoothed.
It's a scaled version of a 1200*1600, with a slight "accentuation"
filtering. I remember seeing recently interesting tips about aa somewhere in
this ng but I couldn't find them.
> Higher quality radiosity settings would probably improve the sense of
> depth between the plants.
Possibly. The truth is that I'm already in the 400 Mb range of RAM use and
that higher rad settings would certainly cause problems.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow great picture as always! One thing, I'm sure this is a result of scaling
down the image from 1200*1600 but incase it isn't, your tree has a number of
floating leaves, that is leaves that don't seem to be atached to anything,
though I'm sure in the full sized image they are just attached to very small
twigs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
WOW !
Impressive !!!
--
Luis
****************************************************
Lightning Generator
http://www.lightning-generator.fr.st
http://LG666.ifrance.com
http://www.pov-wip.fr.st
http://www.pov-monde.org
Chan IRC sur eu.undernet.org : #povray-fr
****************************************************
3ce29c12@news.povray.org...
> Here's a little pic I made.
> - Terragen sky. Actually, it's a terragen-made panorama linked to the sun
> position.
> - isosurface terrain (ridged multifractal)
> - xfrog plants : for those who don't know it, xfrog can be described as
> Poser for plants, with animation and modelling abilities.
> (http://www.xfrog.com, fully-functional 30-day trial version available).
> Some of the plants (the tree, the dandelion) are derived from the models
> bundled with the software and I made others (imaginary ones...). Norbert
> Kern's IRTC winner "warm up" used a lot of xfrog trees. Here there are
> around 17000 plants.
> - 2cv car by De Espona, with some parts remodelled in Rhino. Rust texture
> borrowed from HE Day.
> - low quality radiosity (runs quite fast in fact, 8 hours at 1200*1600 on
my
> P733).
> The image was rendered with assumed_gamma = 1. The gamma and contrast were
> adjusted by post-processing. It could use more contrast actually. I
couldn't
> get rid of that painterly look but it's not so bad after all.
>
> G.
> --
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaime Vives Piqueres
Subject: Re: Not for sale anymore (120 kbu)
Date: 16 May 2002 04:19:20
Message: <3ce36b88@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm... err... ahhh! (looking at the "little pic" from top to bottom).
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles - I hate you ;-)
well, not really - your images teach me each time my limits in imagination
and technical realisation ...
your image is impressive as usual
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:DsjiPCazuvsuNqyThQYZf0QwGI7s@4ax.com Glen Berry wrote:
> Attachment saved: C:\TEMP\Not_4_Sale_fog.jpg
>
The foggy one looks better than the blurred one.
The blurred one looks a bit strange to me. To get that amount of blur at
that position in a photo, you'd have to use a big telelens. Then the
forground would also be blurred. Also the 'perspective' doesn't match with
a telephoto.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
