Stephen McAvoy wrote:


> Yes the colouring but not of the walkway but the hillock. The texture
> looks right if it is about a mile away but the path shows it is much
> closer. 

Yes I think you are right.  I you are even more correct if I was to 
render at higher resolution.  Incidently I believe this is what makes 
golf such a vexing sport ;)  It is dreadfully hard to judge scale at 
just those sorts of distances based on natural features.  For references 
I googled "golf courses' and similar. It seems to be the point at which 
textures start to soften into broader patterns. In my picture a pov unit 
is about a foot.  The center of the pond, which is what all my objects 
are translated and rotated in relatioin too, is 60 units from the bench. 
  The center of the main blob that the receding stair loops around is 
200 units from the center, so 260 units from the bench.

Of course it is also true, is it not, that it is just these sort of 
perceptual phenomena that European parks designers exploited to produce 
the illusion of grand vistas?

I admit I was quite proud of that distant grass texture when I came up 
with it ( based on the cells pattern )  But I also feel it won't "carry" 
as is.  I kept picturing adding people to the scene to reduce the role 
it plays.  Otherwise I need to figure a way to add more real vagary to 
the surface.  Cells reproduces the color patterns of distant grass well 
I think.  But it does nothing as a normal.  Funny though, the island in 
the pond is covered with real mesh-generated grass.  At this resolution 
it might as well be a normal.

Okay, enough blather, more work.  Thanks for taking the time to bat 
things around with me.



> 
> Thanks for the link, very nice to see some of your work. I am
> impressed.
> 

Thanks.  Working to try and integrate this all into a larger statement 
somehow.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:35:15 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>Yes I think you are right.  
As always :-) Ha!

>  Incidently I believe this is what makes golf such a vexing sport ;)  



>Of course it is also true, is it not, that it is just these sort of 
>perceptual phenomena that European parks designers exploited to produce 
>the illusion of grand vistas?

True, but what happens to the element of surprise the second time
round?
Guess the quote.


>I admit I was quite proud of that distant grass texture when I came up 
>with it ( based on the cells pattern )  But I also feel it won't "carry" 
>as is.  

It is good, care to share it. After the competition of course. 
>
>Okay, enough blather, more work.  Thanks for taking the time to bat 
>things around with me.

Yeah back to the oars, and no worries. I'm just happy to give you more
work :-)

>> 
>> Thanks for the link, very nice to see some of your work. I am
>> impressed.
>> 
>
>Thanks.  Working to try and integrate this all into a larger statement 
>somehow.

42 :-)

Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:42c168b4@news.povray.org...
> The whole thing came about because I needed to do something with the far
> side of the pond.  I felt there needed to be some sort of wall or riser
> there, just behind that featured topiary, precisely to give the eye a
> reference point and to help profile the point where the topiary is
> supported. Having a hill just recede away into the background along with
> the converging lines of the surrounding walkway seemed unsatisfying.
> Once I put the riser there, the need to have it extend into the hill,
> somehow, was inevitable.  I kind of liked the stairs sweeping down and
> ending at the all important toe touch.  But in the general case it is
> well known that such convergences of lines in a picture are bad
> compositionally. precisely because they interrupt the sense of
> overlapping perspective.  The least I can do is rotate the stairs around
> the pond to the right some more or change the camera angle.  Actually,
> in my mind the wall was higher, but I wanted that sort of golf links
> look too, with fixtures extending into the distance on a rolling green.
>   Maybe I want too much
>
Not easy. Try something with the camera, yes, that might help... In
addition, have you considered to delete altogether that part to the right
that branches off the pathway, just leaving it to sweep to the left and -
eventually -  out of view?

> >
> >
> > That is very good work, Jim. I believe that this may get people
interested
> > in shoes you know! Quintessential, really.
> >
> >
> Thankyou.  I believe there is a *lot* of latency involved with shoes.
> If you look closely you may notice that I showed you the "selected"
> menu.  Inquiring minds may wonder what would be on the plain vanilla menu
;)

Yes, that's right! More shoes?? (I tried to peek, but was frustrated... :-))

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Not easy. Try something with the camera, yes, that might help... In
> addition, have you considered to delete altogether that part to the right
> that branches off the pathway, just leaving it to sweep to the left and -
> eventually -  out of view?
> 

No I hadn't really since that would recreate the whole problem of how to 
decorate that far side of the pond.  Which was what I was trying to 
avoid, putting benches and trees etc such as what the viewer is standing 
among on the near side.  Also, you see, as is it conceals what would be 
a fairly nasty problem of having the convex round of the hill flow into 
the concave curve of the pond border in some sort of believable way.

But the rough experiment would be easy enough to do so I will give it a 
look.  My own inclination at this poit is to construct a much nore 
elaborate system of retaining walls.  But while I think about all this I 
will refine those foreground leaves and branches.  Back to good ol' 
MakeTree for that.


>
> 
> Yes, that's right! More shoes?? (I tried to peek, but was frustrated... :-))
> 
lol
http://www21.brinkster.com/jrcsurvey/paintings/menu.html

Post a reply to this message