 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with that the image doesn't look quite there - IF you are after a
realistic image. The image as it exists is already effective.
This area must have been logged for all of the trees to be of such similar
age and type. The image reminds me of a large tree plantation in the state
of South Carolina in America. I toured it a few years ago. The terrain
there was of course flat.
If this assumption about this land being farmed for trees is correct, the
trees trunks are not straight enough. Trees farmed for logs are planted and
thinned as they grow. They have very straight trunks. I am not talking
about the camera distortion, which I like, but rather the wiggle in the
tree trunks. Lower branches are also often trimmed. The thinned trees are
used for pulp wood to make paper while the best and straightest trees are
allow to mature for lumber. The fallen trees would only be there as whole
trees if this were an older growth natural forrest. A natural forrest will
have
trees of many ages, sizes and many more dead and rotting trees both on the
ground and standing.
Perhaps add dead branches below the tree tops. The lower branches in any
forrest die off as the tree reaches upward for the sunlight.
I think too the trees are just a bit too thin for ferns to flourish as they
flourish in this image. Ferns thrive in shade - at least the varieties I
know.
Even on logged land with cultivated trees there are usually "weed" trees of
other varieties coming up here and there.
Perhaps the rock on the left front and tree in front should have less
moss/lichen cover given the sparseness of the trees.
I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much older,
dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
cover we see and the fallen trees.
Image brightness and contrast look OK to me here.
Bill P.
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-online de> wrote:
> I want to finish this WIP, but how?
> Starting from an atmosphere test (thanks to Abe for the starting point), the
> scene quickly developed to an half-finished state.
> Recently Gilles Tran motivated me to start working on it again after showing
> an earlier version to him along the way.
> The rock and the dead mossy tree are still likely to be changed.
>
> Two questions:
> - The image seems to lack something - but what? I already added and deleted
> several animals, they didn't seem to fit.
> - Is the picture bright enough? I have three different LCD monitors, all
> with different Gamma. I want to collect other opinions.
>
> Eventually the final picture will be rendered in 3000+ pixels and will take
> at least six weeks on two computers.
>
>
> Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"William Pokorny" <pokorny_epix_net> wrote in message
news:web.410682a9b87a50fabe64aa460@news.povray.org...
> I think too the trees are just a bit too thin for ferns to flourish
as they
> flourish in this image. Ferns thrive in shade - at least the
varieties I
> know.
Bingo! I've been in many woods/forests like this in the UK, and
they seem/ed darker than this image. Bright 'sunbeams' through the
canopy may be the answer. Just a thought.
~Steve~
> Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Pokorny wrote:
>
> I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much older,
> dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> cover we see and the fallen trees.
>
Really? You believe that there is no possible combination of natural
factors which affect top cover could ever possibly result in a localized
stand such as this? Soil makeup, mudslides, underground streams,
windstorms, rainfall, flood, climate, season, light exposure, fire,
pest, disease, plant interaction,...maybe because I am no naturalist,
nature seems to allow more possibilities than I can usually account for.
I agree that with that much apparent light exposure it would likely
not be so completely bereft of scrub or variety in tree size anywhere in
the camera's view. But while the relative openess and reduced range of
species seems unusual to me, it does not seem impossible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good eye William,
you described most of the weaknesses of the image.
There is only one conifer type tree which is randomly scaled and rotated.
Of course a more dense forest would be more realistic, but hard to render.
I will try to add more dead branches, more trees of different age and reduce
the moss.
Thank you for your tips.
Norebrt Kern
"William Pokorny" <pokorny_epix_net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:web.410682a9b87a50fabe64aa460@news.povray.org...
>
> I agree with that the image doesn't look quite there - IF you are after a
> realistic image. The image as it exists is already effective.
>
> This area must have been logged for all of the trees to be of such similar
> age and type. The image reminds me of a large tree plantation in the state
> of South Carolina in America. I toured it a few years ago. The terrain
> there was of course flat.
>
> If this assumption about this land being farmed for trees is correct, the
> trees trunks are not straight enough. Trees farmed for logs are planted
and
> thinned as they grow. They have very straight trunks. I am not talking
> about the camera distortion, which I like, but rather the wiggle in the
> tree trunks. Lower branches are also often trimmed. The thinned trees are
> used for pulp wood to make paper while the best and straightest trees are
> allow to mature for lumber. The fallen trees would only be there as whole
> trees if this were an older growth natural forrest. A natural forrest will
> have
> trees of many ages, sizes and many more dead and rotting trees both on the
> ground and standing.
>
> Perhaps add dead branches below the tree tops. The lower branches in any
> forrest die off as the tree reaches upward for the sunlight.
>
> I think too the trees are just a bit too thin for ferns to flourish as
they
> flourish in this image. Ferns thrive in shade - at least the varieties I
> know.
>
> Even on logged land with cultivated trees there are usually "weed" trees
of
> other varieties coming up here and there.
>
> Perhaps the rock on the left front and tree in front should have less
> moss/lichen cover given the sparseness of the trees.
>
> I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much
older,
> dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> cover we see and the fallen trees.
>
> Image brightness and contrast look OK to me here.
> Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4106a05b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Bingo! I've been in many woods/forests like this in the UK, and
> they seem/ed darker than this image. Bright 'sunbeams' through the
> canopy may be the answer. Just a thought.
I tried that, but in this image it seems to be incredibily slow.
I will add more density to the forest.
Norbert Kern
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think there are such combinations on earth to support a similar
vegetation, but it doesn't seem to be a good approximation to many viewers
expectations.
And this is what is important for me. Thank you for your arguments, thea are
really helpful.
Norbert Kern
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4106b464$1@news.povray.org...
> William Pokorny wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> > overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much
older,
> > dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> > cover we see and the fallen trees.
> >
> Really? You believe that there is no possible combination of natural
> factors which affect top cover could ever possibly result in a localized
> stand such as this? Soil makeup, mudslides, underground streams,
> windstorms, rainfall, flood, climate, season, light exposure, fire,
> pest, disease, plant interaction,...maybe because I am no naturalist,
> nature seems to allow more possibilities than I can usually account for.
> I agree that with that much apparent light exposure it would likely
> not be so completely bereft of scrub or variety in tree size anywhere in
> the camera's view. But while the relative openess and reduced range of
> species seems unusual to me, it does not seem impossible.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:4106f175$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4106a05b$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > Bingo! I've been in many woods/forests like this in the UK, and
> > they seem/ed darker than this image. Bright 'sunbeams' through the
> > canopy may be the answer. Just a thought.
>
>
>
> I tried that, but in this image it seems to be incredibily slow.
> I will add more density to the forest.
>
>
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about modifying the density. In northern boreal
forests, the tree density can often be fairly light while still producing a
lot of ferns. I don't have any pictures of the area where I hunt (in
northern Michigan), but there are ferns everywhere, even - and especially -
in the open areas.
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:4106b464$1@news.povray.org...
> William Pokorny wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> > overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much
older,
> > dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> > cover we see and the fallen trees.
> >
> Really? You believe that there is no possible combination of natural
> factors which affect top cover could ever possibly result in a localized
> stand such as this? Soil makeup, mudslides, underground streams,
> windstorms, rainfall, flood, climate, season, light exposure, fire,
> pest, disease, plant interaction,...maybe because I am no naturalist,
> nature seems to allow more possibilities than I can usually account for.
> I agree that with that much apparent light exposure it would likely
> not be so completely bereft of scrub or variety in tree size anywhere in
> the camera's view. But while the relative openess and reduced range of
> species seems unusual to me, it does not seem impossible.
One simple explanation comes to mind: moose. Moose will often eat the lower
branches off of trees while the trees are still small. aka "The browse
line"
Here are a couple pictures which are not too different looking:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/BorealMigration/
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
