 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam <lig### [at] tiscali fr> wrote:
> Just a try with snow for a upcoming "merry-christmas-happy-new-year"
> image... comments, suggestion about the snow are welcome !
Too blue or not - I for one think this is really good!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skip Talbot wrote:
> 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.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most impressive.
(Too blue? That depends on the lighting conditions, surely...? I've
certainly seen snow look like this under a blue sky!)
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.
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] aolcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
