I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!

The only things I can see that need more work now are:
-steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing, and 
I totally agree.
-colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some black 
in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
-more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
-background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones 
eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright

But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!

Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (357 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'

Tek wrote:
> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
> 

great improvment since first version ... wow.


> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing, and 
> I totally agree.

I see a small problem by adding steam colums where the lava hits the water. Your 
smoke colum implies a wind drift coming from left-behind. So the steam colum 
would also drift to the right-front and would cover parts of the most 
interessting elements in your scene.

> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some black 
> in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.

The underwater part looks just to calm. As I renember right, there won`t be much 
bubbles as they tend to implode in the cold water (making this cracking noise). 
But due to the heat you get some kind of striation (Schlierenbildung ???), 
meaning the large temperature gradient causes a field of water with variable IOR 
surrounding the lava. As POV can't deal with variable IOR right now, I don't 
know a quick solution; maybe a series of consecutive isocentric transparent 
spheres with slightly turbulated normals (and a different IOR to the water 
container of cause) could be used to fake it.

... dave

Post a reply to this message

"David El Tom" <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message 
news:43e309b1@news.povray.org...
> I see a small problem by adding steam colums where the lava hits the 
> water. Your smoke colum implies a wind drift coming from left-behind. So 
> the steam colum would also drift to the right-front and would cover parts 
> of the most interessting elements in your scene.

Good point, I hadn't noticed that but you're right. However I'm going to 
keep the steam pretty subtle so I don't think it'll be a problem

>> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some 
>> black in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
>> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
>> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
>
> The underwater part looks just to calm. As I renember right, there won`t 
> be much bubbles as they tend to implode in the cold water (making this 
> cracking noise).

Take a look at the video on this page: 
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/concepts/pillows.html
Definitely bubbles, but they're very small and mostly just add an uneven 
cloudiness to the water except right next to the hottest bit where the 
bubbles are largest (though still tiny).

> But due to the heat you get some kind of striation (Schlierenbildung ???), 
> meaning the large temperature gradient causes a field of water with 
> variable IOR surrounding the lava.

Well heat ripples aren't so vital, unless it's an animation. But anyway it's 
a good idea I'll see how it looks if I cheat with a simple change in IOR 
along a bumpy surface.

--
Tek

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:

> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
> 
> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing,
> and I totally agree.
> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some
> black in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy,
> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
> -background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones
> eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright
> 
> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!
> 
> Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)
> 

Neat, very very neat.

A few remarks ( off course :) )

The boulders/rocks thrown out of the vent are too evenly shaped. They can
vary from fist size to house size.
No impact dust where the boulders come down.
You'll need some sort of steam column where the lava meets the see.

Underwater has come a long way but it looks too quiet, almost tranquil.
Now I don't get a sense of the brute forces that are at work there. (but
don't ask me how to do that :) )

Keep up the good work
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> [...]
> 
> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!

Note these are aspects to improve realism - you might not intend to make 
this most realistic of course.

The Lava: it should always flow downhill - in your case it goes uphill 
in some places.  Also it is somewhat too dark for smoothly flowing lava 
(the dark red one at the water edge would hardly flow any more).  It is 
reasonable to make the lava as bright as the flying one at the top of 
the mountain.

The mountains: Like in terragen images you have a fine structured 
visible surface contrasting with smooth edges.  This probably is a 
result of using bump mapping on a relatively low detail terrain.  This 
makes it look a bit like a theatre mountain made of painted styrofoam.

The 'pyrotechnical effects' are great but does the dust cast shadows on 
itself and the mountains?

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

This is starting to look really good especially the smoke/fire effect. I was
thinking of doing a snow covered volcano scene myself for this round of
IRTC but am glad I didn't as my attempts were nowhere near as good as this.
Congrats on winning the round before last BTW that was a great image. As
this is still WIP I guess you may be planning to change the following (and
I think these may  have been mentioned in previous posts) but I think the
rocks at the front need to look a bit more like they are glowing and they
would be having an effect on the water, the lava flow at the bottom of the
volcano would probably not be so close to the snow (without melting it). I
also agree with you that the image needs a bit more colour (not sure where
or how this can be added though)

I hope you post the source with this one as I would like to steal (I mean
learn from..) your smoke effect.

Great work.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some black
> in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
I quite like the grey, at least for the rocks - looks more volcanic.

I can only think of two other comments, although they're quite minor.
Firstly, I think the lava fountain is a bit regular - too much like a point
source; maybe having several sources together would give it a little more
volume. Secondly, the flowing lava (and the underwater lava) should perhaps
glow a little brighter (although maybe the brightness of the river should
decrease with distance?).

Fantastic looking image, though, especially the above/below water split -
this is going to be a classic!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Great improvements!
Something that bothers me a little: the lava underwater looks a little bit
too much like separate blobs of matter. I think they should be more
interconnected, forming a bumpy flow over overlapping blobs, but well-welded
together within the flow. A few more bright burstings, more in the
background would also improve that part of the scene, while increasing
perhaps somewhat the murkiness of the water.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:43e300e2@news.povray.org...
> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
>

Very nice.

The flowing lava should be a bit brighter. See here (volcano in iceland)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060129.html

Post a reply to this message

This is coming along quite nicely!  Other than things that other people 
have mentioned, there are a couple of things that strike me.  First I 
would guess that there's be some snow melt bordering the lava flow. 
Currently it seems like the lava borders the snow directly and I think 
this is what makes the lava flow look "pasted on" to me.  I looked for 
an image to confirm this, but this was the best I found, and it's not a 
particularly clear picture of it:

http://www.spring.net/marci/Public/Hawaii/LavaOnSnow.jpg

It's also possible that the scene could benefit from some haze.  Other 
than the smoke plume itself, the air is very clear.  Part of this I 
imagine is because it gives a really nice contrast in the upper part of 
the image, but perhaps some small amount of haze could still help 
without destroying this effect.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:43e300e2@news.povray.org...
>I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
>
> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing, 
> and I totally agree.
> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some 
> black in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
> -background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones 
> eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright
>
> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!
>
> Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)

      Well, to me Tek, it seems like it's a 'small' volcano. I don't know 
whether I'm right or wrong with this, and I wouldn't know how to rectify it 
in this scene, but I thought volcanoes were usually *big*? I don't see a 
sense of scale here.

    Otherwise, really good improvements imo. Should make for a *very* good 
final image.

    Me? I haven't even started yet...  :/

       ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:drv7jv$jc0$1@chho.imagico.de...


    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?

      ~Steve~



> Christoph

Post a reply to this message

>>But due to the heat you get some kind of striation (Schlierenbildung ???), 
>>meaning the large temperature gradient causes a field of water with 
>>variable IOR surrounding the lava.
> 
> 
> Well heat ripples aren't so vital, unless it's an animation. But anyway it's 
> a good idea I'll see how it looks if I cheat with a simple change in IOR 
> along a bumpy surface.

Yeah - since you're not animating it, you could perhaps get away with a 
simple plane in front of the hot parts with weird normals to make it 
look all blurry and warped. Would only look correct from one direction - 
but that's all you need.

Post a reply to this message

I'm liking it. The sky *is* too bright. And that smoke cloud should have 
big black parts to it. Would also be cool (haha!) if the flying boulders 
would illuminate the smoke cloud - but I have no idea how in hell you do 
that without having to wait several epocs for POV-Ray to draw it! :-/

IME, the laval should be brighter. Sometimes laval flows develop of sort 
of dark bit along the middle and the edges. The bits round the edges 
stay stationary, and the bits on top move with the flow. This is why 
they don't join; the flow rips them apart.

Of course, all of that depends on how hot the lava is, how viscous it 
is, how fast it's moving, etc etc etc, so...

I'm liking what's happening under water. Perhaps the water should be 
slightly more murky, I'm not sure. (I really like the sea floor, so it 
would be a shame to completely obscure it!) The glowing lava should 
perhaps slightly illuminate the sea floor - but that would surely demand 
radiosity... (Hope you have a nice render farm!)

Distribution of flying rock is perhaps a touch too uniform. (All the 
arcs seem to lead back to a single point. Maybe make the launch 
direction slightly random...)

No further comments, really. Looking good!

Post a reply to this message

>    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?

Look at the central lava river coming down... It seems to dissapear into 
some kind of "dip" in the surface, yet continues flowing over the rip of 
that dip (hence "uphill").

Of course, liquid rock is hot. And liquid. But it's still heavy. I 
imagine lava has quite a lot of momentum if it's moving fast... it's 
just a question of how much momentum exactly.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> 
>    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?
> 

When i say "it should always flow downhill" this does not necessarily 
mean it flows uphill in the image (although i am sure it does in some 
places).  It is simply not taking the downhill direction everywhere 
(i.e. the *steepest* direction going down).

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

>>    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?
>>
> 
> When i say "it should always flow downhill" this does not necessarily 
> mean it flows uphill in the image (although i am sure it does in some 
> places).  It is simply not taking the downhill direction everywhere 
> (i.e. the *steepest* direction going down).

Momentum and viscosity - but yeah, I see what you're saying.

Post a reply to this message

> Underwater has come a long way but it looks too quiet, almost tranquil.
> Now I don't get a sense of the brute forces that are at work there. (but
> don't ask me how to do that :) )

The underwater part is a major, major, improvement. :-)

Suggestion: Can you make it look like it flows a little more as it cools?

I don't have any pics in front of me, but I've seen footage of underwater
volcanos that came up to a point like a terrestrial volcano, and the lava
kind of oozed down the sides. The layer of lava exposed to water cools
pretty quickly, but the inside stays molten long enough for the mass to
slide around a little.

Maybe you could try applying your fantastic texture to blob objects. :-)

William

Post a reply to this message

St. nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 03/02/2006 14:03:
> 
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
> news:43e300e2@news.povray.org...
> 
>> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
>>
>> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
>> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be 
>> appearing, and I totally agree.
>> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some 
>> black in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
>> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very 
>> cloudy, darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
>> -background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones 
>> eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright
>>
>> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!
>>
>> Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)
> 
> 
>      Well, to me Tek, it seems like it's a 'small' volcano. I don't know 
> whether I'm right or wrong with this, and I wouldn't know how to rectify 
> it in this scene, but I thought volcanoes were usually *big*? I don't 
> see a sense of scale here.
> 
>    Otherwise, really good improvements imo. Should make for a *very* 
> good final image.
> 
>    Me? I haven't even started yet...  :/
> 
>       ~Steve~
> 
> 
>>
>> -- 
>> Tek
>> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>>
>>
>>
> 
A volcano start small, nothing more than a bump, and grow larger the longer it stays
active. The 
large ones you are used to took millenia to reach their actual dimentions. This one
may be *only* 2 
or 3 centurys old...

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A day without sunshine is like, night

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> St. wrote:
>>
>>    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?
>>
> 
> When i say "it should always flow downhill" this does not necessarily 
> mean it flows uphill in the image (although i am sure it does in some 
> places).  It is simply not taking the downhill direction everywhere 
> (i.e. the *steepest* direction going down).
> 
> Christoph
> 

should be not to hard to code a macro to trace a path with steepest descent.

(some kind of local monte carlo approach, similar to the methods used to find 
local minima of multi-dimensional hypersurfaces)

  - store the altitude of the current position
  - step forward
  - shoot rays in random fashion around the new position and trace the altitudes 
(the more you shoot the greater is the possibility to find the local steepest 
descent for this point)
  - compare thoose with the stored one and alter direction to the one with 
biggest difference
  - store this point as new position.

if you would store the gradient at each point you could use it reciprocal factor 
for the broadness of the lava flow, as it shoud get thighter if it flows faster 
and broader if it flows slower (constant flow rate).

another possibilty is to use the analytical derivative of the function you use 
for the volcano surface.

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
> 
> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing, and 
> I totally agree.
> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some black 
> in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
> -background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones 
> eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright
> 
> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!
> 
> Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)
> 
> 
It is getting really good. Two comments:
- There is not much snow/ice in the picture relative to the fires
- The sea is too smooth

and a suggestion: put some some ice on the sea, that'll solve both

Post a reply to this message

Tek
I love the shift in the plume/wind effect.

It occurs to me that this is shallow and possibly tidal water,
Given that, your underwater lava could be be a continuation of the stream 
from the peak being quenched by the icy water.
You may consider a tube/shell for the underwater stuff with a bubbling out 
at the hot front?

How will you manage vigorous boiling? I can't wait.

D

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:drv7jv$jc0$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Note these are aspects to improve realism - you might not intend to make 
> this most realistic of course.

Well I want it fairly realistic, the composition's very artificial so I want 
to balance that with some realism.

> The Lava: it should always flow downhill - in your case it goes uphill in 
> some places.

No it doesn't! The code that places the rivers of lava can only flow 
downwards, also looking at the picture I can't see anywhere that it appears 
to move upwards. If it looks like that to you then it's probably an illusion 
of perspective: the camera is lower than the volcano so if the lava travels 
almost flat towards us it will seem to move up.

Oh, and the underwater lava travels in a completely horizontal direction, 
which isn't realistic but is fine for this image.

>  Also it is somewhat too dark for smoothly flowing lava (the dark red one 
> at the water edge would hardly flow any more).  It is reasonable to make 
> the lava as bright as the flying one at the top of the mountain.

Well I know I've seen footage of lava flowing where the surface was almost 
black, but with patches of red in it. This is the effect I was trying to 
achieve, but I don't think it's there yet.

> The mountains: Like in terragen images you have a fine structured visible 
> surface contrasting with smooth edges.  This probably is a result of using 
> bump mapping on a relatively low detail terrain.  This makes it look a bit 
> like a theatre mountain made of painted styrofoam.

You're right the shape doesn't look rocky enough, I'll try adjusting the 
material and isosurface (there's no bump mapping).

> The 'pyrotechnical effects' are great but does the dust cast shadows on 
> itself and the mountains?

Yes it does, though at the moment that's not obvious. I'll work on that when 
I get round to it.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

That's pretty much exactly what it does! I have a macro already, the only 
limitation of it is that it doesn't look for the steepest slope, just any 
downward slope. Nonetheless this does mean that it definitely doesn't flow 
up hill at any point.

Could someone point out the bits where it looks wrong? Honestly I can't see 
it!

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"David El Tom" <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message 
news:43e466a7@news.povray.org...
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> St. wrote:
>>>
>>>    I'm having a job to see where it's flowing uphill?
>>>
>>
>> When i say "it should always flow downhill" this does not necessarily 
>> mean it flows uphill in the image (although i am sure it does in some 
>> places).  It is simply not taking the downhill direction everywhere (i.e. 
>> the *steepest* direction going down).
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>
> should be not to hard to code a macro to trace a path with steepest 
> descent.
>
> (some kind of local monte carlo approach, similar to the methods used to 
> find local minima of multi-dimensional hypersurfaces)
>
>  - store the altitude of the current position
>  - step forward
>  - shoot rays in random fashion around the new position and trace the 
> altitudes (the more you shoot the greater is the possibility to find the 
> local steepest descent for this point)
>  - compare thoose with the stored one and alter direction to the one with 
> biggest difference
>  - store this point as new position.
>
> if you would store the gradient at each point you could use it reciprocal 
> factor for the broadness of the lava flow, as it shoud get thighter if it 
> flows faster and broader if it flows slower (constant flow rate).
>
> another possibilty is to use the analytical derivative of the function you 
> use for the volcano surface.

Post a reply to this message

The smoke's ridiculously simple, it's just a spherical density function with 
turbulence, then I messed with the lambda and omega of the turbulence and 
rotated the effect to line up one of the sticking out bits with the top of 
the volcano.

But I will provide source, it's all in 1 pov file at the moment so I have no 
excuse not to give the source.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote in message 
news:web.43e32370f33fba362a868be00@news.povray.org...
> This is starting to look really good especially the smoke/fire effect. I 
> was
> thinking of doing a snow covered volcano scene myself for this round of
> IRTC but am glad I didn't as my attempts were nowhere near as good as 
> this.
> Congrats on winning the round before last BTW that was a great image. As
> this is still WIP I guess you may be planning to change the following (and
> I think these may  have been mentioned in previous posts) but I think the
> rocks at the front need to look a bit more like they are glowing and they
> would be having an effect on the water, the lava flow at the bottom of the
> volcano would probably not be so close to the snow (without melting it). I
> also agree with you that the image needs a bit more colour (not sure where
> or how this can be added though)
>
> I hope you post the source with this one as I would like to steal (I mean
> learn from..) your smoke effect.
>
> Great work.
>
> Sean
>

Post a reply to this message

Yay! I think you're the first person to agree with me about the above/below 
water split :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.43e34b63f33fba36731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some 
>> black
>> in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
> I quite like the grey, at least for the rocks - looks more volcanic.
>
> I can only think of two other comments, although they're quite minor.
> Firstly, I think the lava fountain is a bit regular - too much like a 
> point
> source; maybe having several sources together would give it a little more
> volume. Secondly, the flowing lava (and the underwater lava) should 
> perhaps
> glow a little brighter (although maybe the brightness of the river should
> decrease with distance?).
>
> Fantastic looking image, though, especially the above/below water split -
> this is going to be a classic!
>
> Bill
>

Post a reply to this message

I agree with all of that apart from the shapes, which really do look like 
seperate blobs: 
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=pillow+lava

I tried a more interconnected one (it's all a blob object so I can just 
adjust the strength to smooth it out), but it looked less like the reference 
photos.
-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:43e34c69@news.povray.org...
> Great improvements!
> Something that bothers me a little: the lava underwater looks a little bit
> too much like separate blobs of matter. I think they should be more
> interconnected, forming a bumpy flow over overlapping blobs, but 
> well-welded
> together within the flow. A few more bright burstings, more in the
> background would also improve that part of the scene, while increasing
> perhaps somewhat the murkiness of the water.
>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Well I tried some fog and it destroyed the contrast in the upper part of the 
image, the effect is still there but it's turned down so low it's hardly 
visible. I agree though, I need more atmospheric effects between the camera 
and the volcano, I'm hoping that when I add steam from all the 
lava-snow-water interactions it will look right.

BTW thanks for the snow-lava reference, I had failed to find any. I assumed 
that snow couldn't get that close to lava so I was going to completely 
remove snow in the surrounding area, but now I think I might keep it fairly 
close but with lots of melting/steaming effects... Or I'll hide it all 
behind a plume of steam where it pours into the sea...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Kevin Wampler" <wampler+pov### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message 
news:43e39a72$1@news.povray.org...
> This is coming along quite nicely!  Other than things that other people 
> have mentioned, there are a couple of things that strike me.  First I 
> would guess that there's be some snow melt bordering the lava flow. 
> Currently it seems like the lava borders the snow directly and I think 
> this is what makes the lava flow look "pasted on" to me.  I looked for an 
> image to confirm this, but this was the best I found, and it's not a 
> particularly clear picture of it:
>
> http://www.spring.net/marci/Public/Hawaii/LavaOnSnow.jpg
>
> It's also possible that the scene could benefit from some haze.  Other 
> than the smoke plume itself, the air is very clear.  Part of this I 
> imagine is because it gives a really nice contrast in the upper part of 
> the image, but perhaps some small amount of haze could still help without 
> destroying this effect.

Post a reply to this message

Well it's top is 1000m above the water level, I suspect it's just the 
isosurface which looks a little too rounded.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message 
news:43e3f609$1@news.povray.org...
> St. nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 03/02/2006 14:03:
>>
>> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
>> news:43e300e2@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> I now have some proper smoke and underwater lava!
>>>
>>> The only things I can see that need more work now are:
>>> -steam: many people suggested various points for steam to be appearing, 
>>> and I totally agree.
>>> -colours: it's all gone a bit grey in this version, I want to get some 
>>> black in the smoke and volcanic rocks.
>>> -more colours!: that water just looks wrong IMO, should be very cloudy, 
>>> darker, less green, and with steam bubbling round the lava.
>>> -background: those conical mountains will change into realistic ones 
>>> eventually I promise, and the sky colour's maybe too bright
>>>
>>> But I'm sure you folks can think of other things to improve!
>>>
>>> Your comments thus far have helped immensely! So keep them coming :)
>>
>>
>>      Well, to me Tek, it seems like it's a 'small' volcano. I don't know 
>> whether I'm right or wrong with this, and I wouldn't know how to rectify 
>> it in this scene, but I thought volcanoes were usually *big*? I don't see 
>> a sense of scale here.
>>
>>    Otherwise, really good improvements imo. Should make for a *very* good 
>> final image.
>>
>>    Me? I haven't even started yet...  :/
>>
>>       ~Steve~
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Tek
>>> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> A volcano start small, nothing more than a bump, and grow larger the 
> longer it stays active. The large ones you are used to took millenia to 
> reach their actual dimentions. This one may be *only* 2 or 3 centurys 
> old...
>
> -- 
> Alain
> -------------------------------------------------
> A day without sunshine is like, night

Post a reply to this message