Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (213 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:25:42 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:

>I can see 
>the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

It might be because I expect the volcano to loom over me. Even though
I am sure the view is correct. It might be a case of Real Life not
living up to Hollywood Movies.
A bit unsettling but I like it.

Post a reply to this message

To me, the volcano looks too black - it's hard to make out any details 
of the surface. My feeling is it should be a bit brighter (or perhaps 
just lit better), even if it's made out of lava.

The lava flying out of the top is nice, but my inner view expects the 
individual drops to be greater, perhaps even more drop-shaped along 
their flying axis.


Looks like it's going to be a great image, though!

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

 > It might be because I expect the volcano to loom over me.


I think that *is* hollywood. Volcanos (and mountains in general) are too 
big to loom. By the time they're looming, you're standing on them and 
they're under you.

Now, volcanos I think don't tend to be quite so vertical, nor quite so 
symetric.  There would probably also be outbreaks of lava on the slopes 
as well. It does, after all, melt through rock.

The smoke seems very symetrical also. If there were no wind, I'd think 
it would be going mostly up, or up then back down in an umbrella-like 
shape. Maybe having the smoke going one way and the lava coming down on 
the other side would give a nice balance.

I also doubt you'd find snow on the slopes of an active volcano, as it's 
not unusual for the ground to be like 3000 degrees six inches down. I 
was caught in a rain storm once in Hawaii that came down so hard you 
couldn't breathe if you weren't looking at the ground. My feet stayed 
dry, because the rain all evaporated somewhere around my knees. This was 
at tourist distances from the lava, too, not like I was in there taking 
samples. But of course getting rid of the snow would ruin the artistry 
of the image, so that's more a nit than anything.

The ground is both too black and too bare. Lava is very shiney, as the 
surfaces were all liquid a short time ago and cooled under gravity. It's 
mostly brittle and crunchy, like blown glass. Plus it's full of 
delicious plant nutrients, so even days after an eruption, you get grass 
there, saplings, etc.

The water near the shore looks kind of grey, but I don't know if that's 
correct or not. Unless that's supposed to be a beach or something.

I'm looking forward to how you manage the glow of the lava. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
    Luke, the Force is a powerful ally,
    second only to The QuickSave.

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> 
> 

The "something look's wrong" feeling is maybe due to the fact, that normaly the 
tip of the volcano is blown off if you have such a vivid erruption, leaving a 
crater huger then the lava fountain. Also a lava river rinsing from a break at 
the top would make it more Hollywood like.

... dave

Post a reply to this message

I'm sure our ideas on what a volcano should look like will differ with what
kind of mountains are nearby.  For me, here are the two I think of first
when I think 'volcano'since they're the neighborhood mountains (climbed
Helens, skied Hood.) They probably won't be much help for lava realism
though.  I agree with Darren about the symetry & verticality.  Hood is
fairly conical but still a lot flatter and irregular than how your mountain
is now.  St Helens apparently was once noted for how symetrical it was
(prior to what it's most famous for - it's 1980 dissappearance of it's
top). :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Hood

Also, something about the lava (which I associate with places like Hawaii)
rather than ash/steam, and the light color of the water makes me think
'tropical' which is incongrous with the snow. If the snow is due to
elevation I would expect foothills or something to show that the body of
water is a mountain lake or something.   On the other hand,  in response to
Darren, Mt St Helens is an example of an active volcano that does have
snow.

Hmm, anything else... How far away is it?  Maybe some haze?


Charles


"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

I agree with that last idea. I think the volcano lacks a feel of depth 
somehow, and a haze could really help. You could play a bit with the 
lighting as well, to make the overall shape more perceptible.
There is also something that disturbs me with the texture, but I can't 
exactly spot it now... Maybe it's just to sharp ?

Otherwise the cloud looks really impressive already... Last time I 
attempted a thing like that I failed miserably ;-) I think you're on the 
right path with this one !

-- 
Vincent

Charles C wrote:
> Hmm, anything else... How far away is it?  Maybe some haze?
> 
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> 
>>Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
>>the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
>>the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>>
>>--
>>Tek
>>http://evilsuperbrain.com
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Tek nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 24/01/2006 12:25:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> 
> 
Maybe some more snow near the top. Make the lava ejection narower, between 1/4 and 1/2
the diameter 
of the top and uncenterer. As it must be a volcano awakening, there can be snow up to
the rim and 
inside of the crater, there should be a lot of steam. One or two steam column rising
from somewhere 
on the slopes can add much interest.
The background mountains are WAY to conical.
I would expect the water to be mostly dark gray, it reflect mostly the dark ash cloud
and should not 
be as blue as it is now. It's colour should comes from what over it and from some
fade_color.
Adding caustics can improve the aquatic effect. I don't think that using photons here
is worth the 
effort nor the increased render time.
If you are short on time, I propose that you drop the under water part, or only have
it visible 
trough the surface, disturbed by the waves: remove the cutaway in the water.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

I'm not sure but maybe something like this (Photoshop cheating)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano2.jpg' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano2.jpg'

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com

Seeing Mt St. Helens and Mt. Hood every day it's not cloudy and raining
around here, I have a few suggestions, but they may not actually apply.

1) Around here the rock is light gray, and the trees are that dark Fir green
color, but with distance they both turn a medium blue-gray color.  If you
want black basalt for your cone, it may not turn quite as blue, but I
suspect you lose all sense of distance because of that.  The snow should be
a real light blue also.

2) Way too perfect and cone shaped.  The ones around here are rather
deformed, St. Helens looks almost like a ball buried 3/4 down in the ground
from most view points on the south side, but with lots of vert. stripes
where rain has made gullies so there is a rock/snow pattern across it.
Hood still has a peak, but it has a bunch of bumps, canyons, bulges, etc.
from just about any vantage point.  Maybe try pointing Google Earth at some
of the volcanoes you are interested in being similar to.

3) The undersea part still has a ways to go, I think.  At first, I thought
it was a broken open crashed spaceship or something.  Not lumpy enough for
a vent, the water seems to color it too much, but not hide it enough.
Maybe less green for artistry, or more obscure for realism.

Despite all that, It looks pretty good to me, and I'm looking forward to
seeing the final image.

Jon

Post a reply to this message

"Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote:
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> > Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
> > the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
> > the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> >
> > --
> > Tek
> > http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
> [Bunch of stuff...]

One more thing I thought of just after the post button was hit...

That ash cloud doesn't seem right.  As someone else said it's too
symetrical, but I think worse is that it looks like it just hanging above
not coming up from...  It might just be a really large dark rain cloud the
way it is...

There I've done it again, that is the point I want to make, but much too
harsh in it's presentation.  It's not as bad as I make it out, and doesn't
need a whole lot to be really great.  Keep at it.

BTW, I like the lava better in your second image, but I think it needs some
of the cloud mixed in with it.

Jon

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:43d66ec3$1@news.povray.org...
> Now, volcanos I think don't tend to be quite so vertical, nor quite so 
> symetric.  There would probably also be outbreaks of lava on the slopes as 
> well. It does, after all, melt through rock.

Good points, I'm working on all that right now :)

> The smoke seems very symetrical also. If there were no wind, I'd think it 
> would be going mostly up, or up then back down in an umbrella-like shape. 
> Maybe having the smoke going one way and the lava coming down on the other 
> side would give a nice balance.

Agreed, it's also way too translucent for volcanic smoke, I stopped working 
on it because it looks really pretty, but it's definitely going to need to 
change a lot... hopefully I can make it look pretty -and- right!

> I also doubt you'd find snow on the slopes of an active volcano,

Well according to any number of discovery channel documentaries it's pretty 
common. Volcano erupts, suddenly melts lots of snow, huge flooding in 
surrounding areas. The specific eruption that inspired this image was Mt. 
St. Helens, though the initial eruption was mostly just a huge explosion of 
snow and rock, and lava might not have started spouting out of it until all 
the snow was gone.

This isn't meant to be a stable eruption, so I'm going to need to work on 
some more dramatic effects I think.

> The ground is both too black and too bare. Lava is very shiney, as the 
> surfaces were all liquid a short time ago and cooled under gravity. It's 
> mostly brittle and crunchy, like blown glass. Plus it's full of delicious 
> plant nutrients, so even days after an eruption, you get grass there, 
> saplings, etc.

In hawaii this is true, and that's the only volcano I've been to. but my 
understanding is that volcanos that have lain dormant for a while actually 
end up covered mostly in very fertile dark soil and more mountain-like rock, 
and less smooth glassy rock... maybe... you know it's really beginning to 
sound like I need to do some research for this image! how tedious!

> The water near the shore looks kind of grey, but I don't know if that's 
> correct or not. Unless that's supposed to be a beach or something.

That's sand, and it's a placeholder I forgot I'd left in there. Oops! Thanks 
for pointing it out.

> I'm looking forward to how you manage the glow of the lava. :-)

Hmm... I thought I'd get away without radiosity in this image, but I think 
if I have much lava I'll need it...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

> Also, something about the lava (which I associate with places like Hawaii)
> rather than ash/steam, and the light color of the water makes me think
> 'tropical' which is incongrous with the snow.

Good point. I was basing the water colour on some documentary footage I saw, 
but of course that was filmed in hawaii. The lava I'm not so sure about, 
surely there's no reason you can't get lava in cold climates?

I think your comments on shape and how far away it is have hit the nail on 
the head, I've not really thought about the scale of the scene. I have some 
fog on the mountains behind the volcano, and was going to have some steam 
coming off the water in the foreground, but I think in any case I need 
something giving a depth cue on the volcano itself. Incidentally, at the 
moment I think the water is the ocean, and we're in a fairly cold climate, 
but I might change it to a lake if the image starts going that way.

Thanks for the links, that'll save me the trouble of looking for some good 
reference photos!

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.43d68d2c89a10e0058035aeb0@news.povray.org...
> I'm sure our ideas on what a volcano should look like will differ with 
> what
> kind of mountains are nearby.  For me, here are the two I think of first
> when I think 'volcano'since they're the neighborhood mountains (climbed
> Helens, skied Hood.) They probably won't be much help for lava realism
> though.  I agree with Darren about the symetry & verticality.  Hood is
> fairly conical but still a lot flatter and irregular than how your 
> mountain
> is now.  St Helens apparently was once noted for how symetrical it was
> (prior to what it's most famous for - it's 1980 dissappearance of it's
> top). :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Hood
>
> Also, something about the lava (which I associate with places like Hawaii)
> rather than ash/steam, and the light color of the water makes me think
> 'tropical' which is incongrous with the snow. If the snow is due to
> elevation I would expect foothills or something to show that the body of
> water is a mountain lake or something.   On the other hand,  in response 
> to
> Darren, Mt St Helens is an example of an active volcano that does have
> snow.
>
> Hmm, anything else... How far away is it?  Maybe some haze?
>
>
> Charles
>
>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This 
>> is
>> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
>> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>>
>> --
>> Tek
>> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Steam columns! Brilliant idea! Thank you.

BTW the background moutains -are- cones :) I'll stick a heightfield in there 
later when I'm happy with the foreground.

Thanks for all those comments, there's some good ideas in there. And 
regarding the underwater bit, I really don't want to lose the cutaway, it's 
what makes this image unusual, but you're right about caustics and render 
times. We shall see...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message 
news:43d6b13c@news.povray.org...
> Tek nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 24/01/2006 12:25:
>> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This 
>> is the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can 
>> see the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>>
>>
> Maybe some more snow near the top. Make the lava ejection narower, between 
> 1/4 and 1/2 the diameter of the top and uncenterer. As it must be a 
> volcano awakening, there can be snow up to the rim and inside of the 
> crater, there should be a lot of steam. One or two steam column rising 
> from somewhere on the slopes can add much interest.
> The background mountains are WAY to conical.
> I would expect the water to be mostly dark gray, it reflect mostly the 
> dark ash cloud and should not be as blue as it is now. It's colour should 
> comes from what over it and from some fade_color.
> Adding caustics can improve the aquatic effect. I don't think that using 
> photons here is worth the effort nor the increased render time.
> If you are short on time, I propose that you drop the under water part, or 
> only have it visible trough the surface, disturbed by the waves: remove 
> the cutaway in the water.
>
> -- 
> Alain
> -------------------------------------------------
> Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.

Post a reply to this message

Sweet! Yeah I'm going to add a river of lava in a while, though I think I'll 
write a particle system in pov so it actually flows down the mountain. Nice 
eruption effect, I'm going to have to add something like that :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Rene Bui" <ren### [at] freefr> wrote in message 
news:web.43d6b60189a10e0057a4b5680@news.povray.org...
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>
> I'm not sure but maybe something like this (Photoshop cheating)
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

"Jon Buller" <jon### [at] bullersnet> wrote in message 
news:web.43d6c8f889a10e00be920ef30@news.povray.org...
> That ash cloud doesn't seem right.  As someone else said it's too
> symetrical, but I think worse is that it looks like it just hanging above
> not coming up from...  It might just be a really large dark rain cloud the
> way it is...

Yup, well as you can see in the really early WIP I had this lovely complex 
shape, then it looked terrible when I filled it with media so I wussed out 
and now it's just a squashed sphere! I'm going to add more form too it.

> There I've done it again, that is the point I want to make, but much too
> harsh in it's presentation.  It's not as bad as I make it out, and doesn't
> need a whole lot to be really great.  Keep at it.

Seriously don't worry about it, in my opinion that wasn't too harsh, just 
good constructive criticism.

> BTW, I like the lava better in your second image, but I think it needs 
> some
> of the cloud mixed in with it.

I think you're referring to the photoshoped image someone else posted... :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tek wrote:
> Good point. I was basing the water colour on some documentary footage I saw, 
> but of course that was filmed in hawaii. The lava I'm not so sure about, 
> surely there's no reason you can't get lava in cold climates?
> 
	Of course you can get lava in cold climates:
http://images.google.fr/images?q=iceland+volcano&hl=fr&btnG=Recherche+d%27images

		Jerome

- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
*  mailto:jeb### [at] freefr   *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD18Nrd0kWM4JG3k8RAillAJ47o/qS8Il/FHdhMereU/eUm3T6iACeOhmZ
YGc6qgIF6gD5G9fWrwcKEfQ=
=koya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Now, volcanos I think don't tend to be quite so vertical, nor quite so 
> symetric.

Tough to generalize.


Some like these:
   http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/small_screen/fig62.jpg
   http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-tours/uploads/pics/semeru_53206_01.jpg
  
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/large_screen/fig95.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/album.html&h=696&w=1024&sz=212&tbnid=zxYNryPeanCIFM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&hl=en&start=10&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteep%2Bvolcano%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
   http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/small_screen/fig70.jpg
   http://www.uoguelph.ca/~sadura/igref/strato.jpg
   http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/13124/11_026_23.jpg
are very symmetric.

And this one:
  
http://www.volcanos.ms/images/Guatemala/2003_04_14_Expedition_Fuego/fuego_exped-9d-rueckweg-nach-soledad-fuego-eruption.jpg
seems very steep.


> I also doubt you'd find snow on the slopes of an active volcano, as it's 
> not unusual for the ground to be like 3000 degrees six inches down. 

quite a few of those linked above have snow and appear active.

Post a reply to this message

Ron M wrote:
> quite a few of those linked above have snow and appear active.

Yeah. I guess it depends on whether the entire region is active, or 
what. Plus, Yellowstone is quite active and still gets snow on the 
ground, so I stand corrected. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
    Crate & Barrel - Leading Supplier to
      Video Game Worlds Since 1962!

Post a reply to this message

Ron M nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 26/01/2006 12:09:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Now, volcanos I think don't tend to be quite so vertical, nor quite so 
>> symetric.
> 
> 
> Tough to generalize.
> 
> 
> Some like these:
>   http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/small_screen/fig62.jpg
>   
> http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-tours/uploads/pics/semeru_53206_01.jpg 
> 
>   
>
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/large_screen/fig95.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/album.html&h=696&w=1024&sz=212&tbnid=zxYNryPeanCIFM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&hl=en&start=10&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteep%2Bvolcano%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

> 
>   http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-40/images/JPG/small_screen/fig70.jpg
>   http://www.uoguelph.ca/~sadura/igref/strato.jpg
>   http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/13124/11_026_23.jpg
> are very symmetric.
> 
> And this one:
>   
>
http://www.volcanos.ms/images/Guatemala/2003_04_14_Expedition_Fuego/fuego_exped-9d-rueckweg-nach-soledad-fuego-eruption.jpg

> 
> seems very steep.
> 
> 
>> I also doubt you'd find snow on the slopes of an active volcano, as 
>> it's not unusual for the ground to be like 3000 degrees six inches down. 
> 
> 
> quite a few of those linked above have snow and appear active.
> 
When tha lava is very fluid, like in Awaii, the volcano get broad: the lava can flows
fast and far 
away before hardening.
When the lava is thick, the volcano gets steeper: it flows slowly and can't get far
before hardening.
That make Tek's volcano a thick lava variety. Those tend to send prety big lava blobs
on the air, 
when they shoot lava in the air... They also are more prone to have explosive
eruptions.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking about
themselves.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>
> Well according to any number of discovery channel documentaries it's pretty
> common. Volcano erupts, suddenly melts lots of snow, huge flooding in
> surrounding areas. The specific eruption that inspired this image was Mt.
> St. Helens, though the initial eruption was mostly just a huge explosion of
> snow and rock, and lava might not have started spouting out of it until all
> the snow was gone.

In 1985, the Colombian volcano Nevado del Ruiz washed the town of Armero off
the map with a catastrophic snowmelt.  A massive snowmelt is forecast to be
the method Mt. Rainier will use to waste Seatle-Tacoma.

I don't recall any lava in the Mt. St. Helens eruptions; only ash, steam,
and pyroclastics.  I think the magma just blew itself into ash after the
north flank collapsed and releaved the pressure.

>
> This isn't meant to be a stable eruption, so I'm going to need to work on
> some more dramatic effects I think.
>
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:43d66ec3$1@news.povray.org...
> > The ground is both too black and too bare. Lava is very shiney, as the
> > surfaces were all liquid a short time ago and cooled under gravity. It's
> > mostly brittle and crunchy, like blown glass. Plus it's full of delicious
> > plant nutrients, so even days after an eruption, you get grass there,
> > saplings, etc.
>
> In hawaii this is true, and that's the only volcano I've been to. but my
> understanding is that volcanos that have lain dormant for a while actually
> end up covered mostly in very fertile dark soil and more mountain-like rock,
> and less smooth glassy rock... maybe... you know it's really beginning to
> sound like I need to do some research for this image! how tedious!

As Alain pointed out, the Hawai'ian volcanoes are fundamentally different
from the Cascades volcanoes such as Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Hood.  Low
silica (fluid) lavas cool to dark basalts; high silica (viscous) lavas cool
to lighter-colored rocks.

But not only are the form and color of the mountains different, the
eruptions are majorly different, due to the consistencies of the lavas.
Fluid lavas tend to erupt into copious, but well-behaved lava flows.  They
look like the best Hollywood-style killer infernos, with large, turbulent
pools of glowing red molten rock, giant pink gas-propelled fountains, and
rivers of lava hurtling towards the sea, everything you'd expect from
Dante's _Inferno_.  Quite a sight!  Alas, these eruptions are paper tigers;
they are so nonlethal that in Hawai'i they give tours while the volcano is
active!

Contrast that with Mt. St. Helens.  There are two tourist roads leading to
the site, and neither of them so much as approaches the base of the
mountain.  When a high-silica volcano such as Mt. St. Helens stirs, they
talk how many dozens of miles away they'll need to evacuate on 48 hours
notice.  Then the eruption itself is ugly.  Mud, flash flooding,
pyroclastic flows, hot ash all over the place, a lot of gritty smoke (the
cauliflower-like Plinian column), and nighttime at noon for hundreds of
miles around.  Color?  A drab rgb <0.1, 0.1, 0.1> or so.  The picturesque
lava may not even show up!  The visuals aren't something to pull in the
movie goers, but in real life, these are the real killer eruptions.

The blast damage is pretty cool, though.

> Hmm... I thought I'd get away without radiosity in this image, but I think
> if I have much lava I'll need it...

With the smoke column you have, i'd think it would almost be mandatory.
Perhaps only at night though.  I've never seen an eruption up close,
although i've seen the volcano in Montserrat (Soufriere Hills) from a
distance, plus a lot of footage.  (Not sure i'd like to witness an ash flow
up close, in any case.) Soufriere Hills is a composite volcano, with ashy,
explosive-type eruptions.  From a distance, all i could see was varying
shades of gray: light gray, dark gray, cool gray, warm gray, all gray. :-P
However, in night time footage, the ash glows red hot (the nuée ardente),
pretty much as Pliny described it.  In daytime footage, i could see some
red glows on the underside the lateral ash flows; perhaps sunlight
overwhelms the glow, the same way that a daytime sky overwhelms the stars.

Post a reply to this message

Oops!

I forgot to mention--artistic license still rules. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> 
> 

One thing is that you have a drop that's still hot in the water already,
but all followers are far away, over the halfway of the volcano itself
on the height. The lava river Rene suggested seems great, but still that
 one single glowing piece in the water somehow disturbs me.

Also the water seems to be clear (while seeing the gloving drop so
clearly), but the.. umm, bottom(?) doesn't go with that - it seems like
a blue plane, not the bottom of a ocean nor lake.

Maybe the mountains in the background are too pyramid-shaped, too, they
seem to be exported from Egypt :p.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message