Looks very nice. The surface of the chip would probably be at least a 
slightly different color, probably lighter, not having been as weathered.

Post a reply to this message

> Other changes:
> Pigment function to distribute the leaf colours in the
> overhang, more variety of leaf colours.

I think the leaves have a much better "depth" to them now, very nice.


> There's still something not quite right about the darkest
> shadows on the lantern, could it be I need to up the
> recursion_limit from 1 to 2?

Do you have an ambient setting on the lantern, I've found having that having
it too high gives artificial looking shadows.

> Anyway I hope you think it's a significant enough
> improvement to merit a re-post.

Yep definitely.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Hails" <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote in message
news:40748065@news.povray.org...
> "Chris Johnson" <chris(at)chris-j(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> > Very nice! I must say I rather like the way the water looks in the
> > distance - you can get that kind of blurred effect in longer exposure
> > photographs.
>
> Thanks. I'd better point out again (I did in my first post of this WIP,
> but not in this one) that the trees in the bg are a photo. It's cheating
> really and I'd hope to model them in any final post. The water is
>
>     texture {
>         pigment { rgbt 1.0 }
>         normal {
>             bumps 0.008
>             scale 0.16
>             // turbulence 0.5
>         }


I'm always a big fan of averaged normals in a normal map for water. or a
height field built from a pigment_map of the same patterns... this will give
me a good excuse to post one of many works-not-quite-in-progress-anymore.

I love the leaves, though like others said, a little more variation in
brightness or translucency would look great.

The texture on the foreground tree could use some work. It's a little flat
looking. Other than that, it's looking really nice.

-ross.

Post a reply to this message

Ross Litscher wrote:

> 
> I'm always a big fan of averaged normals in a normal map for water. or a
> height field built from a pigment_map of the same patterns... this will
> give me a good excuse to post one of many
> works-not-quite-in-progress-anymore.

Right, I haven't tried that. I was thinking of a large-scale bozo
pattern to modulate between 2 different normals, to get the effect
of wind rippling different areas of the lake.

> I love the leaves, though like others said, a little more variation in
> brightness or translucency would look great.

yes, I'll work on that.

> The texture on the foreground tree could use some work. It's a little flat
> looking. Other than that, it's looking really nice.

I was wondering when someone would notice :-) it's one of the simplest
textures in the picture, I only got away with it because it's so dark.

> -ross.

Thanks for your comments.

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Looks very nice. The surface of the chip would probably be at least a
> slightly different color, probably lighter, not having been as weathered.

Right, I was also thinking of using an isosurface with the same pigment as
the lantern used as a noise function to get a rough surface to the
chip.

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

Felbrigg wrote:

>> Other changes:
>> Pigment function to distribute the leaf colours in the
>> overhang, more variety of leaf colours.
> 
> I think the leaves have a much better "depth" to them now, very nice.
> 
> 
>> There's still something not quite right about the darkest
>> shadows on the lantern, could it be I need to up the
>> recursion_limit from 1 to 2?
> 
> Do you have an ambient setting on the lantern, I've found having that
> having it too high gives artificial looking shadows.

it's:

#local F_Lantern = finish {
    ambient 0.05
    diffuse 1.0
    specular 0.3
    roughness 0.05
}

maybe I should just drop it to 0.0

>> Anyway I hope you think it's a significant enough
>> improvement to merit a re-post.
> 
> Yep definitely.

Thanks.

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message