 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I changed a few things.. lost the radiosity (took too long), added the new ground (a
height
field modified from an aerial view of the scene and using inner and outer shadows in
Fireworks). Also added the white sections so that one of the rings wasn't floating in
mid-air.
Focal blur using HCR-Edit once more, on a slightly less obvious setting.
Is this one better?
All the best,
Andy Cocker
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'AndyCocker_Halves_2.jpg' (65 KB)
Preview of image 'AndyCocker_Halves_2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
i forget what the old groundwas, but this ground looks really good. overall
i think the image is better.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3e6e28cd@news.povray.org Andrew Cocker wrote:
> Is this one better?
Andy,
Yes, it's better. I like the concept of it, but have the feeling that the
composition of the image can be improved, it feels a bit cluttered,
without a real center of attention.
Without any garantee for improvement, these are some things I would try;
The box on the right of the image, shrink it by about 25%. Maybe even move
it a bit more to the right, allow it to be cut-off by the image edge.
Another option would be to move the first box a bit to the left and out of
line with the others.
Love the sand!
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew Cocker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I changed a few things.. lost the radiosity (took too long), added the new ground (a
height
> field modified from an aerial view of the scene and using inner and outer shadows in
> Fireworks). Also added the white sections so that one of the rings wasn't floating
in mid-air.
>
> Focal blur using HCR-Edit once more, on a slightly less obvious setting.
>
> Is this one better?
>
> All the best,
>
> Andy Cocker
>
> ---
It looks fine without the radiosity but I don't really like the focal
blur. That's just a matter of taste/opinion though. I feel that way with
a lot of images.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The image looks great.
That sandy ground is awesome! I'm not clear on how it was created and would
love to learn more. What is Fireworks, and inner and outer shadows?
Thanks,
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Renderdog wrote:
>The image looks great.
>
>That sandy ground is awesome! I'm not clear on how it was created and would
>love to learn more. What is Fireworks, and inner and outer shadows?
>
>Thanks,
>Mark
>
I agree! A mini tutorial on the sand/dirt effect would be appreciated!
As for the rest of the image I can only see one problem area. It is in the
normal on the metal rings. The normal is too deep, and causes a grainy
look on the metal. This can be seen most clearly on the foremost top ring.
{bumps .05} in the relevant section. Other then that I thing the image is
very
effective. Definitely wallpaper material.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fascinating picture. I like where you are headed with it. Explores the
vocabulary of raytraced effects.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ross Litscher" <lit### [at] osu edu> wrote in message news:3e6e311e@news.povray.org...
> i forget what the old groundwas, but this ground looks really good. overall
> i think the image is better.
Thanks. The old ground was just an infinite plane with a light brown pigment.
All the best,
Andy Cocker
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
> in news:3e6e28cd@news.povray.org Andrew Cocker wrote:
> Yes, it's better. I like the concept of it, but have the feeling that the
> composition of the image can be improved, it feels a bit cluttered,
> without a real center of attention.
Yes, I agree it does seem a little cluttered, but I think that is caused in the main
by having
sections of the 'boxes' missing (originally they were to be whole, and the image
looked a lot
simpler). Regarding the layout, I like symmetry, and the shapes are at present
(ignoring their
rotation) symetrically placed, actually in the shape of a cross. I think I'd like to
stick
with that placement and sizing.
> Love the sand!
Yes, it worked out really well, although it's really, really simple (a height field
and an
image map), and I do feel as though I've cheated a little in using image maps, but if
it
works, it works!
Thanks for your comments,
All the best,
Andy Cocker
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Remco de Korte" <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
news:3E6E473F.C8DE891F@onwijs.com...
> It looks fine without the radiosity but I don't really like the focal
> blur. That's just a matter of taste/opinion though. I feel that way with
> a lot of images.
I take on board your comments about the focal blur, but in this instance there needs
to be
some focal blur, as the sand relies on a repeated image map, and looks too busy in the
distance. Of course, I could get around this with using a texture map, but I quite
like the
focal blur as it is.
Andy Cocker
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
