 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Your eyes will adjust to the "white" of the snow anyway to cancel out any
> blue tone. There is no point in commenting on the "blueness" of the snow
> until other objects are placed in the scene for comparison.
My thunderbird border decoration is gray.
Makes me see the difference ;-).
Of course I agree the snow looks very good.
The little sparkles which depend heavily on light
incidence and camera/eye position can be seen clearly.
These often fail to appear in snow scenes.
Sebastian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Skip Talbot" <Ski### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:43991a2c$1@news.povray.org...
> I concur, Mike. One must realize that when the sky is bright blue, the
> shadowed side of snow is going to be... blue. So enough with the its
> too blue comments.
http://www.blueridgemuse.com/images/030305snowdrifts.jpg
> Too purple is right. I know some of the stock sky textures have a bit
> too much red in them.
>
> But the snow is amazing nonetheless. Nice job, Light Beam
>
> Skip
yeah, too purple when comparing it to that image. And too hard to get a
sense of scale too. If this is an area about 4 feet wide, then it looks odd.
If it's a few hundred yards, it looks good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
THIS PICTURE IS NOT RAY TRACED! Just posted to keep the blue wars going...
I would consider your snow to be just about perfect and hope you post
your source so I can steal it :-)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'angus.jpg' (319 KB)
Preview of image 'angus.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that it is nearly perfect. "Too blue/Too purple" both depend on how
other objects appear in comparison, and right now, I don't see any other
objects.
I also really like how you were able to make the snow look "fluffy". That's
not an easy effect, as far as I am aware. I'd be really interested in
seeing the snow code.
Something that I do see, however, are tiny black dots in the blue snow. I'm
guessing that you're using an iso-surface here? It may be a max_gradient
problem.
"LightBeam" <lig### [at] tiscalifr> wrote in message
news:4398be38@news.povray.org...
> Just a try with snow for a upcoming "merry-christmas-happy-new-year"
> image... comments, suggestion about the snow are welcome !
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! How'd you get the dog's hair to look so realistic? (Just kidding,
but couldn't resist <g>)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> Your eyes will adjust to the "white" of the snow anyway to cancel out any
> blue tone. There is no point in commenting on the "blueness" of the snow
> until other objects are placed in the scene for comparison.
>
This is easier to understand, if you'll take a photo of snow to a film
that's ment to be used with electric (bulb) lightning. While balance is
very much meaning thing and human eye is extremely well possible to get
used for different lightning conditions.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Wow! How'd you get the dog's hair to look so realistic? (Just kidding,
> but couldn't resist <g>)
>
How can you say that? It's not even near of realistic :o. Check the fur
at the middle of the dog, in the dog's head and at the dog's tail.
There's some mysterious blur effect in the middle of the dog, like it
was out of focal depth (which it can't be; the head and tail of the dog
and the fence at background prove that). ;)
Much focal depth here, thou. It's been bright day so the aperture is
low, maybe somewhere around F/16? Focal lenght hasn't been long either,
I'd guess 28mm.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
very good !
about the blue:
If it's co used by the blue sky, then all other objects should be at least
as blue as the snow. maybe just make the snow white and add a bit of blue
the lighting ?
or just a blue sky and radiosity..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> Just a try with snow for a upcoming "merry-christmas-happy-new-year"
> image... comments, suggestion about the snow are welcome !
Looks like there was some snow, then the kids came out and played, and
then another fresh inch of really fluffy stuff fell on it. Right now
it's late in the afternoon and there is not a cloud in the sky. It's
also well below the freezing point.
On the drawback side, I do detect some faceting along the edges of some
of the shadows.
Regards,
John
(who grew up where it snows in just about every way, and wishes he were
back)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 23:14:37 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Wow! How'd you get the dog's hair to look so realistic? (Just kidding,
>> but couldn't resist <g>)
>>
>>
> How can you say that? It's not even near of realistic :o.
Ah, well, my left eye is slightly out of focus, so maybe that had
something to do with it. That said, though, even at the middle of
the dog, the reason that the fur looks a little odd is because of a shadow
coming from an object that's out of frame. That's hyper-realism, to
place something out of frame so it casts a shadow like that while being
trace. I still say "well done, and can we see the souce?". <g>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
