Orchid XP v2 spake:

>> The washed-out look comes mainly from the ground fog. I am not too
>> displeased with that as it is intentional for the landscape. The cliff
>> for instance is much sharper / neater than the landscape under some kind
>> of tropical blanket. But everything can certainly be tweaked more indeed!
> 
> How on earth do you "tweak" an image that takes 36 *hours* to render? o__O
> 
> Sheesh... you have way more patients than me!
> 
> (Not, of course, that I consider this a BAD thing... You seem to have
> produced a pretty cool image as a result.)

Hey! I've got a trace of something I didn't design (I just modified it)
which has been running about 600+ hours so far...

-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:43e3a2a4$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> >
> > The yellow lit area comes from the background height_field. It is in
fact
> > one of the used texture colors. Was not deliberate and is, IMO, too
visible.
> >
> I love that part!

Well... I am not sure. However, it may be considered the equivalent of  "le
petit pan de mur jaune" (the little piece of yellow wall) that Marcel Proust
writes about when describing the View of Delft by Vermeer.
Yes. Now that I think about it, I shall leave it as a statement!

Thanks Jim, for starting up my brains again!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht
news:43e3a137$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> Yes, I think you are taking it in the right direction.  I think adding
> more elements improves this picture.  Moving the balloon closer adds a
> lot.  Allows us to mentally "enter" the scene.  The waterfall is a great
> element but needs work yet I feel.  I question its placement.  Too close
> to the center of the composition and it cuts the cliff edge right next
> to where the moon cuts the cliff edge.  And I question its realness.  It
> really needs to suggest falling water in order to emphasize the sense of
> height of the cliff. I think there needs to be a sense of the water
> breaking up and vapourizing as it falls.  Where ever you put it, it is
> going to be an attention getting element in the scene and as such will
> need to be spot on.  I think the hazy clouds might be too much.  Maybe
> make them more of a hint?

Right on the spot, Jim!
I have not been too happy with the waterfall's location. I mainly did choose
it because it was a lower part of the cliff. However, it does not work well
with the moon here. And, indeed, it is too centrally placed. More work
needed here.
The clouds: I put them in to judge their effect. Still not what I would
like, though.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v2" <voi### [at] devnull> schreef in bericht
news:43e3b2fb$1@news.povray.org...
> > This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
> > especially for the lower half of the image.
>
> Eeeps! o__O
>
> I'd offer you render power... but it's kind of impractical. Soz. :-/
>
Thanks! Don't worry, I'll manage :-)

>
> I think the mist is maybe a little OTT.
>
Depends on the intention. I probably shall experiment a little bit more with
that.

> Perhaps make it more patchy, or make it hug the surface more closely or
> something... I'm not sure. You'd have to play with it...
>
> I really do like those plants though.

Yep! The red ones have already been changed again though.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> schreef in bericht
news:43e39e9f@news.povray.org...
>
> Excellent! Looks like some painting by Jon Lomberg from the book Cosmos by
> Carl Sagan... very conceivably an alien landscape.
>
Thanks Stefan! Yes, the impression is of a painting, and I don't want to
destroy that, although I shall work a little bit more on it. It reminds me
somehow of the backgrounds of some (Italian) Renaissance paintings.
something you see through a window, behind the main subject of the painting.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"stm31415" <sam### [at] cscom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e3eb0b220a2816b3eb90420@news.povray.org...
>
> Very pretty.
>
> My main problem with the waterfall is not hte way it looks (though it
would
> be nicer if you worked on that) but is it's geological effect on the
> surroundings. It seems to have had no effect whatsoever on the cliff.
> Either put a dent in the cliff (hard?) or move and scale the waterfall so
> as to place it in an extant dent.
>
Well, it *is* in a lower part of the cliff, but I agree that it looks
somewhat artificial there. Oh well, there is still a lot to do on it!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> schreef in bericht
news:43e4552f@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v2 spake:
> >
> > How on earth do you "tweak" an image that takes 36 *hours* to render?
o__O
> >
> > Sheesh... you have way more patients than me!
> >
> > (Not, of course, that I consider this a BAD thing... You seem to have
> > produced a pretty cool image as a result.)
>
> Hey! I've got a trace of something I didn't design (I just modified it)
> which has been running about 600+ hours so far...
>

I would like to "tweak" it to a more rapid render indeed!!! You have to find
a balance: less objects and faster render but less interesting image, or
more objects and slower render but more interesting image.

I am not sure about this, but I assume that it is the calculation of the
lightfall and shadows of the object elements that takes all the time?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e3eb6f220a28162a868be00@news.povray.org...
>
> This is looking really good and is better than the earlier post, I like
the
> balloon it helps to give scale to the rest of the image, also I agree with
> the many comments about the bottom of the waterfall. At first I wasn't so
> keen on the colours but the more I look at it the more I like the 'washed
> out' look, it makes it look less rendered and more like a
painting/drawing.
>
> At 36 hours I wouldn't fancy turning on radiosity..
>
> Great work.
>

Thanks Sean! Still some work to do (of course!). I like the painting-like
look too!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> A new version of the Alien Cliff.
> Added have been: cloud, waterfall, "birds".
> This time, a larger version. Slow rendering (about 36 hours in total)
> especially for the lower half of the image.
> 
> I am curious about any comments of course!
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 

very impressive,

I like the overall look of this image, especially the colors ....
The waterfall fits quite good as eye-candy in the background. The dropplets 
should be getting smaller in the lower part. Also a misty cloud at the bottom 
would help to imply the enormous height of the fall.

As you have a small lake in the forground you could also add a shallow river 
coming from the fall to feed this lake. Could bring some reflective highlights 
to midplane of the image.

... dave

Post a reply to this message

"David El Tom" <dav### [at] t-onlinede> schreef in bericht
news:43e46932$1@news.povray.org...
>
> very impressive,
>
Really? ;-) Thanks!

> I like the overall look of this image, especially the colors ....
> The waterfall fits quite good as eye-candy in the background. The
dropplets
> should be getting smaller in the lower part. Also a misty cloud at the
bottom
> would help to imply the enormous height of the fall.
>
The waterfall still needs work. I have a media ready to make the mist at the
base. However, I know that that is going to increase my render time, so I
have postponed that till now.

> As you have a small lake in the forground you could also add a shallow
river
> coming from the fall to feed this lake. Could bring some reflective
highlights
> to midplane of the image.
>
I shall have to think about this. It depends on what I am going to do with
the isosurface...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message