 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which is
better.
I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
The second should be self explanatory, but in case it's not obvious: a
snow-covered volcano erupts, the heat of the lava reshaping the cold
mountain, meanwhile beneath the sea lava slowly flows out of an underground
vent and solidifies almost immediately, the cold of the water reshaping the
hot lava.
So which would you rather see get finished?
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (175 KB)
Download 'comet.jpg' (141 KB)
Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'
Preview of image 'comet.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which is
> better.
>
> I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
>
> The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
> fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
> Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
> fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
>
> The second should be self explanatory, but in case it's not obvious: a
> snow-covered volcano erupts, the heat of the lava reshaping the cold
> mountain, meanwhile beneath the sea lava slowly flows out of an underground
> vent and solidifies almost immediately, the cold of the water reshaping the
> hot lava.
>
> So which would you rather see get finished?
>
>
I think the volcano image has great potential... Maybe easier to link to
the theme. And I'd really like to see a volcano done in POV :-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Vincent LE CHEVALIER wrote:
> I think the volcano image has great potential... Maybe easier to link to
> the theme.
I agree
> And I'd really like to see a volcano done in POV :-)
>
Here you go:
http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1999-04-30/jbpompei.jpg :-)
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jeb### [at] free fr *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD0fTMd0kWM4JG3k8RAti9AJ9JcqAM3ZMA+1W4TsS5s59gs4tR8ACeL2i7
6VPfl5TEg6xKctQLI4kdtPQ=
=x0YB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
I also choose the volcano image. It's much more compelling than the comet
scene. But it looks to be much more complicated, code-wise! You'll be
spending some midnight hours with that one! :-) Has great promise. Looking
forward to seeing how it progresses.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well so far I've spent several evenings - I guess maybe 10 hours work - on
the comet scene, but only 2 hours on the volcano. To be honest I think the
volcano image may turn out to be the simpler of the two, simply because
there's a lot less tweaking involved. I know what a volcano looks like but
what should meteors look like from above? how do I make the fragments look
icy? (actually I think I've figured that out now, but I must have spent 4-5
hours just tweaking the icy fragment effect). The point is the comet image
requires a mixture of imagination "what would it look like from this angle?"
and pandering to audience experience to make icy rocks that look like ice
does on earth, despite the environment around them being black...
Anyway I'm waffling, the point is I actually think the volcano's the easier
image, by a small margin.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.43d1f6bc1ad32b73a96c375e0@news.povray.org...
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>
> I also choose the volcano image. It's much more compelling than the comet
> scene. But it looks to be much more complicated, code-wise! You'll be
> spending some midnight hours with that one! :-) Has great promise. Looking
> forward to seeing how it progresses.
>
> Ken
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:27:06 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:
>I know what a volcano looks like but
>what should meteors look like from above?
Knowing what a volcano looks like will, IMO, make it harder to
realize. Everyone else does too and realistic fumes are hard to do.
Where as a space scene is only bound by your imagination. For these
reasons I would like to see your volcano :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which is
> better.
>
> I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
>
> The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
> fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
> Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
> fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
I like this although i would leave out the comet idea and just go for
earth + some rock/ice fragments. The ice material is already quite
impressive - must be quite slow to render or did you use some fast fake
scattering technique?. The only thing that bothers me is the grainy
reflection spot on the earth.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well that's the other problem I have with the comet scene, it's insanely
slow to render! I have media for the earth's atmosphere, there's media for
the comet's tail (turned off for this render to get it below 16 hours!) and
the icy rocks have refraction, reflection, fade_colour, AND scattering
media! So definitely not a cheap trick, more a ludicrously complex trick.
But I agree the result is very pleasing, definitely worth the effort.
That grainy reflection spot will go away at some point, the earth's textures
look terrible and are just placeholders.
I like the idea of throwing out the comet, my original idea didn't have a
comet and was just meteors, but I wanted to see if I could get more things
in the scene. Still if I remove the comet I can finish this scene in a lot
less time, so maybe I can do both images before the deadline... that's an
interesting thought...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:dqt1q8$ipt$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Tek wrote:
>> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
>> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which
>> is better.
>>
>> I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
>>
>> The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
>> fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
>> Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
>> fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
>
> I like this although i would leave out the comet idea and just go for
> earth + some rock/ice fragments. The ice material is already quite
> impressive - must be quite slow to render or did you use some fast fake
> scattering technique?. The only thing that bothers me is the grainy
> reflection spot on the earth.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
> http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
> MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In my experience this is less of a problem. The trouble is if I do the comet
image there's a big chance a lot of people won't understand what they're
looking at, which means I have to work on things until they use recognisable
elements, like my ice material. I don't think ice would actually look like
that in space, I've totally cheated with the lighting angle and internal
colours, but because it looks like ice on earth your brain tells you it's
ice and then you can interpret the scene with that information. I'd need to
put equal effort into making a flame effect that looks like recognisable
fire but also looks like a "shooting star". Whereas with a volcano you can
immediately see what it is, so perversely the tiny details are a lot less
important, and I can get away with very stylised effects provided the
overall impression is a volcano.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:tu04t15s9f9ug6j649pkkp7ll5qf7qmct5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:27:06 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
> wrote:
>
>>I know what a volcano looks like but
>>what should meteors look like from above?
>
> Knowing what a volcano looks like will, IMO, make it harder to
> realize. Everyone else does too and realistic fumes are hard to do.
> Where as a space scene is only bound by your imagination. For these
> reasons I would like to see your volcano :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Vincent LE CHEVALIER wrote:
>
>>I think the volcano image has great potential... Maybe easier to link to
>>the theme.
>
>
> I agree
>
>
>>And I'd really like to see a volcano done in POV :-)
>>
>
> Here you go:
> http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1999-04-30/jbpompei.jpg :-)
>
> Jerome
and this was my attempt some years ago
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C40E32320.7050505%40hotmail.com%3E/?ttop=222875&toff=1700
(Strangely I could not find it using the search routine on the news
server, not even with 'yet another landscape andrel' ).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which is
> better.
Well, I was going to say "volcano" because it looks more dramatic and
well-composed right off the bat, but then I looked at the comet picture up
close and boy- you really *have* that icy chunk texture! So I guess I would
still say volcano- although I think the underwater vent might be hard to do
without confusion- but it would really be cool to have those icerocks in
there somehow. (Maybe a comet hitting a volcano from high orbit? That's
like some terrible sci-fi schlock :))
Anyway, good luck whichever one you choose. I'm sure you're superbrain will
create a fine (if evil) image.
-Stefan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>
> So which would you rather see get finished?
Volcano...
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> wrote in message
news:web.43d2ad6b1ad32b73641d079c0@news.povray.org...
> Well, I was going to say "volcano" because it looks more dramatic and
> well-composed right off the bat, but then I looked at the comet picture up
> close and boy- you really *have* that icy chunk texture! So I guess I
> would
> still say volcano- although I think the underwater vent might be hard to
> do
> without confusion- but it would really be cool to have those icerocks in
> there somehow.
I was thinking the same thing, I'm really pleased with that ice material.
Well the volcano has snow on it, and I'm making it a very wintery scene to
play to the topic, so there's no reason I couldn't shove one of those lumps
of ice in the foreground somehow.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
news:43d1ea47@news.povray.org...
> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which
is
> better.
>
In the end the choice is yours, of course... My personal impression is that
the volcano is somewhat too obvious. Everybody is going to think about
Iceland or Mount Erebus on Antarctica. So, I expect a large number of
volcanoes in this round. The comet, on the other hand is more challenging,
perhaps a little bit less obvious for the topic, but full of potential...
and difficulties.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which is
> better.
>
> I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
>
> The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
> fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
> Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
> fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
>
> The second should be self explanatory, but in case it's not obvious: a
> snow-covered volcano erupts, the heat of the lava reshaping the cold
> mountain, meanwhile beneath the sea lava slowly flows out of an underground
> vent and solidifies almost immediately, the cold of the water reshaping the
> hot lava.
>
> So which would you rather see get finished?
>
>
As some sort of compromise, what about Io (Jupiter's moon) or an Io-like
moon in the picture?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
>>And I'd really like to see a volcano done in POV :-)
>>
>
> Here you go:
> http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1999-04-30/jbpompei.jpg :-)
>
> Jerome
He I knew I should have searched before saying that ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My thoughts exactly. The volcano will be hard because lots of people will be
doing that, but the comet is a harder subject to do well I think.
Still, most people have sided with my personal preference of the volcano. So
I'm going to do that one and then try to leave enough time to finish the
comet.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:43d34691$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
> news:43d1ea47@news.povray.org...
>> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
>> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which
> is
>> better.
>>
> In the end the choice is yours, of course... My personal impression is
> that
> the volcano is somewhat too obvious. Everybody is going to think about
> Iceland or Mount Erebus on Antarctica. So, I expect a large number of
> volcanoes in this round. The comet, on the other hand is more challenging,
> perhaps a little bit less obvious for the topic, but full of potential...
> and difficulties.
>
> Thomas
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, but there's 2 problems with that: There's not enough atmosphere around
Io for the icy comet to catch fire, and there's no ice on the surface of Io
(as far as I know). So really it loses the point of both images! Besides I'm
not looking for a compromise, I think each image has enough in it already
and trying to combine them will make it crowded and confusing (to be honest,
I think the comet image already runs the risk of confusing people).
Thanks for the suggestion anyway, and feel free to correct me if I
misinterpretted your suggestion :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:43D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Tek wrote:
>> Here's 2 work-in-progress images for the "fire & ice" IRTC topic, I don't
>> think I'll have time to finish both, so I want an honest opinion on which
>> is better.
>>
>> I have a slight preference for one but I'm not going to tell you :)
>>
>> The first image is a comet (in the top left, near the sun) trailing icy
>> fragments which are going to fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere.
>> Obviously this scene hasn't got the comet-tail effect, and the distant
>> fragments aren't burning up, so this one requires a bit of imagination...
>>
>> The second should be self explanatory, but in case it's not obvious: a
>> snow-covered volcano erupts, the heat of the lava reshaping the cold
>> mountain, meanwhile beneath the sea lava slowly flows out of an
>> underground vent and solidifies almost immediately, the cold of the water
>> reshaping the hot lava.
>>
>> So which would you rather see get finished?
>>
>>
>
> As some sort of compromise, what about Io (Jupiter's moon) or an Io-like
> moon in the picture?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Ah, but there's 2 problems with that: There's not enough atmosphere around
> Io for the icy comet to catch fire, and there's no ice on the surface of Io
> (as far as I know). So really it loses the point of both images!
How about Io (fire) and Europa (ice)? There's even a connection between the
two in that Io's fire is caused by the tidal tug-of-war with Europa and
Jupiter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> Ah, but there's 2 problems with that: There's not enough atmosphere around
> Io for the icy comet to catch fire, and there's no ice on the surface of Io
> (as far as I know). So really it loses the point of both images! Besides I'm
> not looking for a compromise,
I know, but I was ;) (bad habit, I know)
> I think each image has enough in it already
> and trying to combine them will make it crowded and confusing (to be honest,
> I think the comet image already runs the risk of confusing people).
>
> Thanks for the suggestion anyway, and feel free to correct me if I
> misinterpretted your suggestion :)
>
The suggestion was more or less that including Io in a space image
automatically included the fire, because of its vulcanos, and as
you had already started modelling them for the other image...
I also like the idea of Io and Europa, but that would leave no room
for your nice icy comet particles, so we leave that for someone else,
I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Io and europa has more potential. The trouble with Io and a comet is they're
2 completely independant bodies in space, that you've brought together for
the topic. i.e. you've got one picture of fire, and one picture of ice, but
nothing relating the 2. The main focus of both my images is some kind of
interaction between the two extremes, particularly in the comet scene where
the ice would actually cause fire when it burns up in the atmosphere.
But Io and Europa are interesting because they're 2 extremes orbitting the
same planet. Still, I'm not going to try that one I've got too many ideas
already!
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:43D### [at] hotmailcom...
> Tek wrote:
>> Ah, but there's 2 problems with that: There's not enough atmosphere
>> around Io for the icy comet to catch fire, and there's no ice on the
>> surface of Io (as far as I know). So really it loses the point of both
>> images! Besides I'm not looking for a compromise,
> I know, but I was ;) (bad habit, I know)
>
>> I think each image has enough in it already and trying to combine them
>> will make it crowded and confusing (to be honest, I think the comet image
>> already runs the risk of confusing people).
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion anyway, and feel free to correct me if I
>> misinterpretted your suggestion :)
>>
> The suggestion was more or less that including Io in a space image
> automatically included the fire, because of its vulcanos, and as
> you had already started modelling them for the other image...
>
> I also like the idea of Io and Europa, but that would leave no room
> for your nice icy comet particles, so we leave that for someone else,
> I guess.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
