3dccf24b@news.povray.org...
> Here is just a quick try to implement some of the comments (trees
disabled).
> Bumpiness of the watersurface is much lower and a tint of red is added to
> the horizon. Much better in my opinion, especially the water. Thanks for
the
> hints!

Much better now.
Maybe the sun itself should be a little bit orange
and the water a little less bumpy, but it's just my opinion.
It's getting better and better.
Would be too much to ask for a 1024x768 version
when you'll finish your image?
See you.

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

very nice work. my two comments are that the darks don't seem dark enough
and the water is too rough. A wide slow river would seem to not have such
waves, atleast not i all the parts. for instance if the wind is from the
right, the right part of the river would be calm, blocked from wind. but
this is very picky, only because its such a nice scene. i mean, those trees
are excellent.



Christoph Gerber <ni.### [at] bluewinch> wrote in message
news:3dcc2787@news.povray.org...
> This scene is derived form my Elevado scene posted a few days ago. It
> contains more than 15'000 mesh trees. The river terrain is a one of the
> samples coming with World Machine. Except the number of trees this is a
> quite simple scene. Nevertheless it took almost 30 hours to render on a
1.7
> GHz PC with 500  MB of RAM.
> Regards, Christoph
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

The code for the water uses variable reflection but is real simple
otherwise:

#declare WaterTex = texture {
  pigment {rgb 0.1}
  normal {bumps 0.05 turbulence 0.5 scale 0.3}
  finish {
    ambient 0.1
    diffuse 0.1
    reflection_min 0.0
    reflection_max 0.8
    specular 0.5
    roughness 0.01
    phong 0.5
    phong_size 200
  }
}

Regards, Christoph

"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:815qsu0042mami5pns81ii9jdfae3lohqt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:32:03 +0100, "Christoph Gerber"
> <ni.### [at] bluewinch> wrote:
>
> >Here is just a quick try to implement some of the comments (trees
disabled).
> >Bumpiness of the watersurface is much lower and a tint of red is added to
> >the horizon. Much better in my opinion, especially the water. Thanks for
the
> >hints!
>
> Much better now (and yes, I know you'll put the trees back in :) ).
> The water still looks a little CG. Are you using fresnel reflection?
> Attenuation?
>
>
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
> TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dcd83a0@news.povray.org>,
 "Christoph Gerber" <ni.### [at] bluewinch> wrote:

>     reflection_min 0.0
>     reflection_max 0.8

You're using MegaPOV? Why?

It might benefit from conserve_energy being turned on, but I doubt it 
will have much visible effect here.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:52:23 +0100, "Christoph Gerber"
<ni.### [at] bluewinch> wrote:

>The code for the water uses variable reflection but is real simple
>otherwise:

I would suggest a few things:

1. Use POV-Ray 3.5 :)
2. Use fresnel reflection (coupled with a ior of 4/3) and
conserve_energy
3. The pigment is way off, water is normally perfectly clear with only
slight attenuation. Why don't you use something like pigment { rgbf 1
} and add attenuation to the ior (either fade_power 1000 or absorbing
media)?

These are realistic settings, try giving them a shot and see if they
make your scene look more real.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <79pssu0ois4jioc7d20kt097u6l029fi2q@4ax.com>,
 Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:

> 1. Use POV-Ray 3.5 :)

Agreed.


> 3. The pigment is way off, water is normally perfectly clear with only
> slight attenuation. Why don't you use something like pigment { rgbf 1
> } and add attenuation to the ior (either fade_power 1000 or absorbing
> media)?

Actually, a dark opaque pigment makes sense here, you usually can't see 
through this kind of water unless you are right above a shallow portion, 
and the scene is already slow rendering. I'd get rid of the ambient 
though, as a rule I only use a non-0 ambient value for objects that are 
supposed to glow.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:42:10 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

>Actually, a dark opaque pigment makes sense here, you usually can't see 
>through this kind of water unless you are right above a shallow portion, 
>and the scene is already slow rendering. 

Attenuation won't slow it down, but it adds more realism along the
shores and at steep angles of incidence.

>I'd get rid of the ambient though, as a rule I only use a non-0 ambient 
>value for objects that are supposed to glow.

Agreed.

Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

In article <t62tsu4m6eq18omqjunq22lug2aji9a3pp@4ax.com>,
 Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:

> >Actually, a dark opaque pigment makes sense here, you usually can't see 
> >through this kind of water unless you are right above a shallow portion, 
> >and the scene is already slow rendering. 
> 
> Attenuation won't slow it down, but it adds more realism along the
> shores and at steep angles of incidence.

Instead of an opaque texture? Yes, it will be slower. The attenuation 
calculations themselves don't cost much, though they are quite a bit 
more than just using a constant color value, but any transparency at all 
will require tracing at least one refracted ray every time the water is 
hit, and then the additional texture calculation of the ground under the 
water.

The shores often don't slope gradually out of the water, in fact there 
is often an overhang. It takes practice to see into the water in this 
situation even when it is clear, and if the water is carrying lots of 
silt, you often can't see your feet if you are wading. A nearly black 
opaque texture is a decent time saving approximation for this type of 
image, even if it won't look good close up.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:19:24 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

>Instead of an opaque texture? Yes, it will be slower. The attenuation 
>calculations themselves don't cost much, though they are quite a bit 
>more than just using a constant color value, but any transparency at all 
>will require tracing at least one refracted ray every time the water is 
>hit, and then the additional texture calculation of the ground under the 
>water.

You're right, of course, it's just that I thought it was rgbf 0.1 in
the original post.




Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:06:32 +0100, "Christoph Gerber" <ni.### [at] bluewinch>
wrote:
> This scene is derived form my Elevado scene posted a few days ago.

I wonder how it could look under film exposure patch made recently by Karii.

ABX

Post a reply to this message