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.

Alternatively, a texture a bit like
http://www.gris.uni-tuebingen.de/~bartz/Photos/usa/rainier.jpg would work. I
like the forground of this one where you can actually see the ripples, but
both in that photo and (in my experience) in pov-ray, you can start getting
odd pixels shining up bright at long distances, where the scale of the
detail is much smaller than the pixel resolution. A lot of antialiasing
might fix this though. BTW, google image search for "lake reflection" brings
up a lot of nice photos of how this kind of thing looks for lake surfaces of
various roughnesses.

I have a few other comments - it would be nice if the water was a bit
higher, so that the small plant by the water line in the foreground was
reflected more clearly. The trees in the background are also rather large,
it seems to me. Perhaps the top of the trees could be visable in the lake,
and some sky and scenery behind (a mountain?).

Very impressive overall though.

-Chris

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>   Well, my original thought was, "If you stand under a tree in these
> circumstances, and look up, then you will see many variations in
> colour".

Yes, of course, you're right. Like I said in my first post of this a
week or so ago "I'm loosing objectivity". Thanks for your perceptive
comments.

>     I would experiment further with this image, and I really want to
> see the final... :)
> 

Unfortunately I have to put it away for a while, other demands on my
(play)time, hopefully in a week or so I can get back to it.

Thanks again!

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Hails" <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote in message
news:40747c79@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
> >   Well, my original thought was, "If you stand under a tree in
these
> > circumstances, and look up, then you will see many variations in
> > colour".
>
> Yes, of course, you're right. Like I said in my first post of this a
> week or so ago "I'm loosing objectivity".

 I'm sorry, for some reason, I missed that.


Thanks for your perceptive
> comments.

   I'm no expert, but I like to hope that I help in some way.


>
> >     I would experiment further with this image, and I really want
to
> > see the final... :)
> >
>
> Unfortunately I have to put it away for a while, other demands on my
> (play)time, hopefully in a week or so I can get back to it.
>
> Thanks again!

   No problem, I understand.

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

"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
        }
        finish {
            ambient 0.0
            diffuse 0.0
            reflection {
                0.5, 1.0
                fresnel on
            }
            specular 0.4
            roughness 0.003
        }
    }
    interior {
        ior 1.3
    }

with a black plane underneath it

> Alternatively, a texture a bit like
> http://www.gris.uni-tuebingen.de/~bartz/Photos/usa/rainier.jpg would work.
> I like the forground of this one where you can actually see the ripples,
> but both in that photo and (in my experience) in pov-ray, you can start
> getting odd pixels shining up bright at long distances, where the scale of
> the detail is much smaller than the pixel resolution. A lot of
> antialiasing might fix this though. BTW, google image search for "lake
> reflection" brings up a lot of nice photos of how this kind of thing looks
> for lake surfaces of various roughnesses.

anti-aliasing is probably the main reason why it took
Time For Parse:    0 hours  8 minutes  27.0 seconds (507 seconds)
Time For Trace:   81 hours 47 minutes  26.0 seconds (294274 seconds)
    Total Time:   81 hours 53 minutes   1.0 seconds (294781 seconds)
:-)

> I have a few other comments - it would be nice if the water was a bit
> higher, so that the small plant by the water line in the foreground was
> reflected more clearly. The trees in the background are also rather large,
> it seems to me. Perhaps the top of the trees could be visable in the lake,
> and some sky and scenery behind (a mountain?).

I'll have a look at raising the water level, it's keyed to the texture
and the hf of the far (and near) banks however.
I'm working from a reference photo, the trees are pretty much in keeping
with that.

> Very impressive overall though.

Thanks, It's slow going though :-)

> -Chris

-- 
Bill Hails

Post a reply to this message

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