 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No deck chair or umbrella yet, I'm still mulling over why they would be there...
But anyway, here's a version with improved grass placement, and some flowers,
bees, and butterflies to add variety. I've also made the water more realistic
and dipped the bottom of the "island" into it (with a few ripples radiating from
where they meet). Oh, and also I added some distant mountains because the
horizon looked a bit empty. Incidentally, the bees are stripey, but you just
can't see it at this resolution, so they just look like flying yellow dots :)
This render was at 1600x1200, with no anti-aliasing or focal blur, so it only
took 59 minutes 34 seconds. Things look smooth despite the lack of AA because
most of the things in the scene have soft edges (the grass blades, the insects,
the flowers, and the clouds) and I've rescaled it to 1024x768 which smoothed out
everything else.
My immediate plans are to make less bees and more butterflies, then to think
about the deck chair some more...
But beyond that I have no plan. The suggestions so far have been excellent, so I
welcome any more suggestions/comments/criticisms/etc.
Thanks
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'grassy.jpg' (110 KB)
Preview of image 'grassy.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, neat! But some desperate need to make remarks forces me to say that the
grass looks a bit too soft/furry... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I really, really love this kind of images (chef d'oeuvre !?) what about à
little flowered apple tree on the right side of the montain... (6 or 7 years
old little tree)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great picture! Personally I think the clouds are the weak part of the
image.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Great picture! Personally I think the clouds are the weak part of the
> image.
Perhaps with the Gilles Tran's Cloud macro !?
http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/sources13.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"_Light_Beam_" <s.f### [at] tiscali fr> wrote in message
news:3eee4d4a@news.povray.org...
> > Great picture! Personally I think the clouds are the weak part of the
> > image.
>
> Perhaps with the Gilles Tran's Cloud macro !?
> http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/sources13.htm
Well at the moment the clouds are a 2D texture on the sky_sphere, they don't
look that good but considering they're done just using pov's patterns I'm pretty
pleased :)
I'll replace them when the image is near finished, possibly using Gilles' macro
or a 3D version of the ones I have here, but I don't want to slow the render
down any more than necessary at the moment. I don't have the patience!
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"_Light_Beam_" <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote in message
news:3eee4b03@news.povray.org...
> I really, really love this kind of images (chef d'oeuvre !?) what about à
> little flowered apple tree on the right side of the montain... (6 or 7 years
> old little tree)
Yay! you're the first person to suggest a tree but I've been thinking the same
thing for a while :)
I've noticed there seem to be natural steps climbing from the right side up and
to the left. I'm thinking the right most narrow step is the way in, so I might
put a ladder from there down to the water, the next step -the large flat area in
the middle- would be where a deck chair would go, then the step above that could
have a small tree exactly like you suggest.
The thing I'm wondering now is do I put the tree in a central position to
suggest it was planted there, or put it off to one side slightly to suggest it's
naturally grown there?
hmm...
This image is growing in a very satisfying way :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll try to explain this with my very poor english...
I think the tree can be pushed by the wind and naturally gown...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3eee449b$1@news.povray.org...
> Ah, neat! But some desperate need to make remarks forces me to say that the
> grass looks a bit too soft/furry... :)
Well I did ask for your comments so I don't mind :)
That's partly due to the fact I reduced the image resolution. Here's a section
at the original resolution for comparison. In addition to that I do use a
texture on them which has a soft edge, it's easy to adjust this so I'll tweak it
when I have some solid objects intruding into the grass.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'grassy_seg.jpg' (10 KB)
Preview of image 'grassy_seg.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"_Light_Beam_" <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote in message
news:3eee51c5$1@news.povray.org...
> I'll try to explain this with my very poor english...
> I think the tree can be pushed by the wind and naturally gown...
>
Hmm, yeah. I think I know what you mean. In fact now I look at the image I could
place a tree almost out of site at the furthest part of the large flat area,
then maybe have a smaller tree in the forground on the higher level to suggest
they're naturally growing there...
I think I'll have to try this idea and see how it looks :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And if you add just a little bit of "transmit" or "filter" to the grass
texture or also "double_illuminate"... It can helps ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It already has transmit and double illuminate, that's what makes it look so nice
and soft :)
Though it also means I need max_trace_level set really high, it's currently set
to 100.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"_Light_Beam_" <s.f### [at] tiscalifr> wrote in message
news:3eee538a$1@news.povray.org...
> And if you add just a little bit of "transmit" or "filter" to the grass
> texture or also "double_illuminate"... It can helps ?
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about jet trails in the sky and a little boy/girl/robot lying down
(possibly under the tree) flying a kite.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Near the top of the julia you have a little circle of grass that almost
looks like a yin yang. You could take it that way, but I also think there is
just enough room for a hobbit-esque door instead.
Corey
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:26:12 +0100, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:
Sorry, but I liked the first version much better.
I liked the perspective better. The viewpoint was much closer to the
fractal structure and helped focus attention on the fractal. (Exactly
where I think attention should be focused in this image.)
The new details you've added to the water and the distant mountains
merely serve to distract one's attention away from the fractal. I
liked the look of the original scene's water just fine. It looked
soft, like a slightly out of focus depth-of-field effect. This
softness helped to direct attention to the more detailed fractal
object (the subject of this image.)
As for your flowers, bees, and butterflies; they are too difficult to
recognize. They could just as well be pieces of yellow litter left
laying in the grass. At the current image resolution, and with your
current scaling for these objects, I think they are best left out of
the image.
Finally, there was more grass and less rock in the first image. The
grass looks nice and the rock looks somewhat ugly, at least if it
occupies large areas of the image. I would keep the amount of grass
coverage you had in the first image.
Sorry if this all sounds harsh; but remember, while I'm criticizing
this image, I'm also praising your first one. :)
later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree that the softness was nicer in the first image, like I said this
test render had no focal blur (depth of field) so obviously things don't
look as soft as they will in a final render. I too like the softness. Also
the small details are because this is a test render at lower res than I plan
to use. I'm thinking of making it into a poster, so it will be 7800 pixels
resolution which should be enough :)
I understand what you're saying about the perspective, I'm still playing
with that. Once I have a more complete image I'll be more sure where I want
the camera. But I do want to shift focus away from the julia slightly, I
want there to be more things in the scene and for the julia to just be part
of that.
I have to disagree about the water though, the colour of the water at the
bottom of the first version of the image was completely unrelated to the
colours used elswhere in the scene, it had far too much green in it and
appeared almost opaque. The colours I'm using now add depth and clarity to
the water, and also feel a lot more "watery" because the reflection is more
distinct from the water colour, which makes it seem shinier.
The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes. But I totally agree that the
rock texture isn't good enough to fill that much of the scene. Plus the
transition between grass and rock appears too harsh in places (particularly
the closest area), so I may find some way to soften that.
Thanks for your comments. It would get boring if everyone was agreeing with
me :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:77itev49fvu1e7tfluo3h16trjj4mrmtuv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:26:12 +0100, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I liked the first version much better.
>
> I liked the perspective better. The viewpoint was much closer to the
> fractal structure and helped focus attention on the fractal. (Exactly
> where I think attention should be focused in this image.)
>
> The new details you've added to the water and the distant mountains
> merely serve to distract one's attention away from the fractal. I
> liked the look of the original scene's water just fine. It looked
> soft, like a slightly out of focus depth-of-field effect. This
> softness helped to direct attention to the more detailed fractal
> object (the subject of this image.)
>
> As for your flowers, bees, and butterflies; they are too difficult to
> recognize. They could just as well be pieces of yellow litter left
> laying in the grass. At the current image resolution, and with your
> current scaling for these objects, I think they are best left out of
> the image.
>
> Finally, there was more grass and less rock in the first image. The
> grass looks nice and the rock looks somewhat ugly, at least if it
> occupies large areas of the image. I would keep the amount of grass
> coverage you had in the first image.
>
> Sorry if this all sounds harsh; but remember, while I'm criticizing
> this image, I'm also praising your first one. :)
>
>
> later,
> Glen Berry
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:38 +0100, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:
>The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
>wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes.
But somehow it feels "right" having grass growing on a huge floating
julia fractal? :)
Do the rules of physics still apply at this point? This is surrealism,
isn't it?
>Thanks for your comments. It would get boring if everyone was agreeing with
>me :)
I wouldn't know about that. It seems there is always someone
disagreeing with me. :)
later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do the rules of physics still apply at this point? This is surrealism,
> isn't it?
Yes it is surrealism, which means the laws of physics apply exactly how I want
them to :)
I don't want to make everything in the scene strange, the hovering fractal is
enough. Trying to put that into a fairly normal scene will make a nice overall
surreal effect, I think.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:lecuevoitluk9kt1hn3vblue2m15h79qj7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:26:38 +0100, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
> wrote:
>
> >The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
> >wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes.
>
> But somehow it feels "right" having grass growing on a huge floating
> julia fractal? :)
>
> Do the rules of physics still apply at this point? This is surrealism,
> isn't it?
>
>
> >Thanks for your comments. It would get boring if everyone was agreeing with
> >me :)
>
> I wouldn't know about that. It seems there is always someone
> disagreeing with me. :)
>
>
> later,
> Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mayhem" <thu### [at] shawca> wrote in message
news:web.3eee5ba2f31f2ce92895e0c40@news.povray.org...
> How about jet trails in the sky and a little boy/girl/robot lying down
> (possibly under the tree) flying a kite.
Hmm... I think jet trails might detract from the relaxed peaceful atmosphere of
the scene, 'cause it suggests pollution and noise and lots of things that don't
fit with the mood of the image. Robots might make a nice alternative to people
so I'll bear that in mind when/if I decide to populate the scene.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There's enough room for a door, but not for the hobbit hole it would lead into,
unless I make the whole island into a house... nah, that would just be wierd :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Corey" <sch### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3eeeb9af$1@news.povray.org...
> Near the top of the julia you have a little circle of grass that almost
> looks like a yin yang. You could take it that way, but I also think there is
> just enough room for a hobbit-esque door instead.
>
> Corey
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is an island? I thought it is a boat made of clay, and expected you
to add a rudder, extending from the left side into the water, a steering
wheel (in front of the deck chair), and a sort of motor, for example a
kite (or birds, or big butterflies), connected with a rope, pulling the
whole thing gently to the right, creating a wake on the water.
Of course a door is required to reach the cabins in the lower part; all
of them need a window -- perhaps in the unaligned style of Friedensreich
Hundertwasser?
This version looks much better than the first one, esp. the water is great
and the scene at the horizon is very realistic now.
I'm very interested in your next version!
Sputnik
--
----------------------------
Frank 'Sputnik' Rothfuß
fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
----------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's a very different interpretation to my one, but I can see how it could
work like that...
My view was that it's a stationary place to relax and watch the clouds, but I'm
going to bear your idea in mind because there's definitely something in it :)
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Frank 'Sputnik' Rothfuß" <fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde> wrote in message
news:3eef83c3$1@news.povray.org...
> This is an island? I thought it is a boat made of clay, and expected you
> to add a rudder, extending from the left side into the water, a steering
> wheel (in front of the deck chair), and a sort of motor, for example a
> kite (or birds, or big butterflies), connected with a rope, pulling the
> whole thing gently to the right, creating a wake on the water.
> Of course a door is required to reach the cabins in the lower part; all
> of them need a window -- perhaps in the unaligned style of Friedensreich
> Hundertwasser?
> This version looks much better than the first one, esp. the water is great
> and the scene at the horizon is very realistic now.
> I'm very interested in your next version!
>
> Sputnik
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> Frank 'Sputnik' Rothfuß
> fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
> ----------------------------
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
>
> The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
> wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes. But I totally agree that the
> rock texture isn't good enough to fill that much of the scene. Plus the
> transition between grass and rock appears too harsh in places (particularly
> the closest area), so I may find some way to soften that.
What if you used a slope pattern, or even a modified version of one of
those blob-placing snow macros (with a fairly thin, precise setting
using lots of little blob components), to have some dirt on the flatter
surfaces for the grass to grow out of, so it doesn't look like the grass
is growing out of the rock?
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah I think I might try something like that, though the dirt colour might
interfere with the nice soft look of the image so far.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in message
news:3ef0cf13$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
> >
> > The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
> > wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes. But I totally agree that the
> > rock texture isn't good enough to fill that much of the scene. Plus the
> > transition between grass and rock appears too harsh in places (particularly
> > the closest area), so I may find some way to soften that.
>
> What if you used a slope pattern, or even a modified version of one of
> those blob-placing snow macros (with a fairly thin, precise setting
> using lots of little blob components), to have some dirt on the flatter
> surfaces for the grass to grow out of, so it doesn't look like the grass
> is growing out of the rock?
>
> -Xplo
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You know what? I think I like all your work. this is truely an interesting
image!
Gary
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:3eee4401@news.povray.org...
> No deck chair or umbrella yet, I'm still mulling over why they would be
there...
>
> But anyway, here's a version with improved grass placement, and some
flowers,
> bees, and butterflies to add variety. I've also made the water more
realistic
> and dipped the bottom of the "island" into it (with a few ripples
radiating from
> where they meet). Oh, and also I added some distant mountains because the
> horizon looked a bit empty. Incidentally, the bees are stripey, but you
just
> can't see it at this resolution, so they just look like flying yellow dots
:)
>
> This render was at 1600x1200, with no anti-aliasing or focal blur, so it
only
> took 59 minutes 34 seconds. Things look smooth despite the lack of AA
because
> most of the things in the scene have soft edges (the grass blades, the
insects,
> the flowers, and the clouds) and I've rescaled it to 1024x768 which
smoothed out
> everything else.
>
> My immediate plans are to make less bees and more butterflies, then to
think
> about the deck chair some more...
>
> But beyond that I have no plan. The suggestions so far have been
excellent, so I
> welcome any more suggestions/comments/criticisms/etc.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Tek
> http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just thought I'd post this. I built a deck chair for the scene, and it actually
works! you can adjust the position of it like you can see here :)
I'll post a new version of the full image once I'm happy with the next stage...
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'deckchair1.jpg' (20 KB)
Download 'deckchair2.jpg' (21 KB)
Download 'deckchair3.jpg' (22 KB)
Preview of image 'deckchair1.jpg'
Preview of image 'deckchair2.jpg'
Preview of image 'deckchair3.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
