 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Alien Cliff.jpg' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'Alien Cliff.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I am curious about any comments of course!
I like where the image is going. I'd look into the colors, it's all very
washed out. Might be the ground-fog... The blue of the sky, the green on the
hills, they could be more saturated.
And how is the image lit, only one lightsources (which obviously isn't the
sun with the flare, wrong shadows for that)? The shadows look very uniform,
so you might either want to add some handplaced fill-lights to simulate
diffuse light (e.g. a reddish lightsource near the cliff, so that objects in
front of it receive reflected light from it), or use radiosity or such. I
generally set ambient to 0 and play with fill-lights & radiosity.
As for that flare, I particularly don't like that it has four spikes. Is it
supposed to be a lense-flare, or just a "too bright to see" spot? In any
case I think the flare should be white, but maybe with a fade to yellow.
When things get too bright, you often just see white.
And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
isosurface... Isn't it possible to render a grayscale map from above and use
a heightfield? With various resolutions for foreground and background. The
hills don't have overhangs or such, so I don't think you really need the
slow isosurface there.
Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlnet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43e348c8@news.povray.org...
> 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
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest order!
I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
the camera means the scale is more apparent.
Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate? It
looks fine, I was just curious...
Bring on the final!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to agree with Bill...I take a break for a month or so and come back
to some very exciting images.Considering that I seem to be wed to one
continuous project, I value the variety of work coming from most members of
this community. Quality is steadily improving and it is exciting to see new
users.
I am reminded of reading The Dragon Riders of Pern when I was younger. I
very much like the layers in this image and the way the color of the cliff
face is picked up by the plants on the plane in the foreground.
Excellent work Thomas!
Tim
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.43e34db1220a2816731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
> paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
>
> This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest
order!
> I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
> the camera means the scale is more apparent.
>
> Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
> much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
> yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate?
It
> looks fine, I was just curious...
>
> Bring on the final!
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great Image, I'm soooooooo jealous.
Some thoughts from "Mr Rent-An-Opinion"
The "particles" of the waterfall seem too big near the bottom. I think the
water need to be more spray-like or more solid. The water looks like it has
broken up into "lumps".
The Waterfall could do with a mist around its lower half.
The "lens flare" is a little overpowering.
The cloud above the lens flare seems to have small ridges, see the attached
image.
I see that Tim thinks you might add some more colour depth. I think the
opposite. The colour level is perfect, to my eyes.
--
#####-----#####-----#####
POV Tips and Hints at ...
http://povman.blogspot.com/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ridges.jpg' (3 KB)
Preview of image 'ridges.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Looks very good... You really got the "huge-ness" factor in there now.
Just one nitpick, I think the lensflare is too big, too there.
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> schreef in
bericht news:43e34ca6$1@news.povray.org...
> > I am curious about any comments of course!
>
> I like where the image is going. I'd look into the colors, it's all very
> washed out. Might be the ground-fog... The blue of the sky, the green on
the
> hills, they could be more saturated.
>
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!
> And how is the image lit, only one lightsources (which obviously isn't the
> sun with the flare, wrong shadows for that)? The shadows look very
uniform,
> so you might either want to add some handplaced fill-lights to simulate
> diffuse light (e.g. a reddish lightsource near the cliff, so that objects
in
> front of it receive reflected light from it), or use radiosity or such. I
> generally set ambient to 0 and play with fill-lights & radiosity.
>
There are three light sources in total: The main sun (outside the view)
generating the shadows; The yellow flare (dimmer) that does not seem to
produce shadows; a fill-in, shadowless light at the spot of the camera, with
a distance fade. Ambient is 0 in the whole scene. Radiosity would be the
next logical step here anyway.
> As for that flare, I particularly don't like that it has four spikes. Is
it
> supposed to be a lense-flare, or just a "too bright to see" spot? In any
> case I think the flare should be white, but maybe with a fade to yellow.
> When things get too bright, you often just see white.
>
Hmm, yes, I know what you mean. I have been hesitating between a lens flare
or a very bright spot. In fact, the second should be it. I have to look into
this...
> And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
> because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
> isosurface... Isn't it possible to render a grayscale map from above and
use
> a heightfield? With various resolutions for foreground and background. The
> hills don't have overhangs or such, so I don't think you really need the
> slow isosurface there.
>
Well, my system is old (win ME; about 6 years old; P3; 1G). I think it is
mainly the plants that slow down the render process, although the landscape
isosurface is slower indeed. But I don't know. I am a bit surprised because
with some 37000 objects, no media, no radiosity, it should be faster... I
shall certainly try the grey scale map as an alternative!
> Those are all just constructive comments, I hope that wasn't too harsh...
>
Excellent Tim! You comments make good sense!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e34db1220a2816731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Can everyone stop posting such good images? I'm having real trouble
> paraphrasing my superlatives! ;)
>
LOL! Thanks Bill! I like this scene, but still.... I am not entirely
satisfied...
> This is excellent, truly amazing. Landscape gardening of the highest
order!
> I especially like the maze pattern on the balloon, and moving it closer to
> the camera means the scale is more apparent.
>
yes, suddenly in a bright moment, I thought that the balloon needed to be
closer to the camera
> Two small comments. I think the waterfall needs some spray - it looks too
> much like the particle system that it presumably is. Secondly, that bright
> yellow lit area to the right, beyond the cliff end - is that deliberate?
It
> looks fine, I was just curious...
>
Yes. You can imagine the time I have already spent on the waterfall (based
on spray.inc by Chris Colefax by the way). I tried different settings, but
it needs more work
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.
> Bring on the final!
I will!
Thomas
> Bill
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Merrin Cullen" <tim### [at] wohrrcom> schreef in bericht
news:43e352a1$1@news.povray.org...
> I have to agree with Bill...I take a break for a month or so and come back
> to some very exciting images.Considering that I seem to be wed to one
> continuous project, I value the variety of work coming from most members
of
> this community. Quality is steadily improving and it is exciting to see
new
> users.
>
> I am reminded of reading The Dragon Riders of Pern when I was younger. I
> very much like the layers in this image and the way the color of the cliff
> face is picked up by the plants on the plane in the foreground.
>
> Excellent work Thomas!
>
Thanks indeed!
Although I had not Pern in mind when I started this image, I must admit that
it is moving somewhat in that direction. Yes, the cliff and plant colors are
intentionally similar.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"POVMAN" <s### [at] acom> schreef in bericht news:43e35434$1@news.povray.org...
> Great Image, I'm soooooooo jealous.
>
Thanks!!! No need to be jealous :-) it's just tedious, hard work ;-)
> Some thoughts from "Mr Rent-An-Opinion"
>
> The "particles" of the waterfall seem too big near the bottom. I think
the
> water need to be more spray-like or more solid. The water looks like it
has
> broken up into "lumps".
>
> The Waterfall could do with a mist around its lower half.
>
The waterfall is still an issue. Much better than when I started
implementing, but still... Need much more work. Possibly, spray.inc which I
used for it will not do in the end.
> The "lens flare" is a little overpowering.
>
I wonder what I am going to do with it... I am not really satisfied myself.
> The cloud above the lens flare seems to have small ridges, see the
attached
> image.
>
> I see that Tim thinks you might add some more colour depth. I think the
> opposite. The colour level is perfect, to my eyes.
>
Yes, this is a matter of taste. Personally, I am fairly content with the
present colour depth. But I might experiment some more...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ger" <No.### [at] ThankYou> schreef in bericht
news:43e358ac@news.povray.org...
> 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
>
> Looks very good... You really got the "huge-ness" factor in there now.
>
> Just one nitpick, I think the lensflare is too big, too there.
>
Thanks a lot!! That lensflare is definitely causing trouble at this stage
:-) Will have to be corrected!!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot spake:
> 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
Excellent! Looks like some painting by Jon Lomberg from the book Cosmos by
Carl Sagan... very conceivably an alien landscape.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
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
>
>
>
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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. :-/
> I am curious about any comments of course!
I think the mist is maybe a little OTT.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> 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 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.
-s
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> 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
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.
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stm31415" <sam### [at] cscom> schreef in bericht
>>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!
>
As a reference for a similar waterfall, you might find these
interesting:
http://www.henrik-ks.dk/photoshtml/BrecheDeRoland/06_23TinaAndHenrikInfronfOfTheGavarnieLaGrandeCascade.JPG
http://www.stmarys-sfc.ac.uk/lourdes2004/On%20the%20way%20to%20the%20glacier%20at%20Gavarnie.JPG
http://www.balades-pyrenees.com/gavarnie_gravure.htm
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jeb### [at] freefr *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD5HIod0kWM4JG3k8RAjoFAKCaK4TCurp50IO7lgrcDRyuOI0MqQCeLHuz
6Q9BWPaf7HHGUCMoIGWjI8Y=
=ZGmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most awesome. Whatever changes you make as the image develops, I trust your
judgment. :O)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> schreef in
bericht news:43e34ca6$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
> because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
> isosurface...
I found the culprit! It is the texture used for the landscape. I embedded a
slope texture inside another slope texture. Now, this works fine, but is
very slow, and not really essential in this scene. I corrected it and lo!
Much faster!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de
news:43e5b15b@news.povray.org...
> Much faster!
>
Now you can rise render time again with media haze for your waterfall ;)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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?
I'm sure if you search around you can find data on these NGs somewhere,
but basically the thing that typically takes most of the time in
raytracing is figuring out which object(s) a ray actually intersects.
(They recon ray intersection tests typically make up 80% of the
calculation - obviously depending on what you're drawing.)
This is probably *especially* true with isosurfaces. Gotta do a whole
adaptive sampling process for each ray intersection there. (Plus extra
calculations to find the surface normal.)
Once you have the ray intersection coordinates and the surface normal,
actually figuring out the lighting is a tiny little calculation. (Except
that if you want shadows, gotta shoot *more* rays... And if you have
area lights, gotta shoot *loads* more rays...)
This is why POV-Ray [currently] has bounding boxes, vista buffers, light
buffers, etc. It's all the try to reduce the number of ray intersection
tests...
[I understand the new beta might be using kD trees or something... not
finalised yet.]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht
news:43e5c88c@news.povray.org...
>
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de
> news:43e5b15b@news.povray.org...
> > Much faster!
> >
> Now you can rise render time again with media haze for your waterfall ;)
>
You know what? I did some testing indeed..... render time dropped
vertiginously!! I am seriously thinking not to implement that item... :-(
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> You know what? I did some testing indeed..... render time dropped
> vertiginously!! I am seriously thinking not to implement that item... :-(
It's interesting that there's a whole range of scene planning / modelling
skills that have no impact at all on the final image but can make the
rendering time feasible as opposed to prohibitive. It's always worth trying
for speed. That's why I'm building my knots out of meshes - I tried it as a
sphere_sweep originally and it took hours - at the moment 35,000 meshes
only take 35 minutes (that's with area lights and at 1024x768).
That said, patience is a virtue when the chips are down. Like Stefan, I
often leave renders running for 100s of hours, usually on my office PC
overnight or at weekends.
Keep up your productive patience!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e716af435fc922731f01d10@news.povray.org...
>
> It's interesting that there's a whole range of scene planning / modelling
> skills that have no impact at all on the final image but can make the
> rendering time feasible as opposed to prohibitive. It's always worth
trying
> for speed. That's why I'm building my knots out of meshes - I tried it as
a
> sphere_sweep originally and it took hours - at the moment 35,000 meshes
> only take 35 minutes (that's with area lights and at 1024x768).
>
> That said, patience is a virtue when the chips are down. Like Stefan, I
> often leave renders running for 100s of hours, usually on my office PC
> overnight or at weekends.
>
> Keep up your productive patience!
> Bill
>
Thanks Bill. Yes, I agree with you.In the present case, I have lost again
quite a lot of render speed by using a more complex plant (mesh2 of course).
And now I have included also a media mist at the base of the (moved
elsewhere) waterfall.
Patience I have (in Yoda speak)... I think the end result will be very
interesting.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Man-o-man, this has improved dramatically since I last saw it. Looks like it
could end up being a fantasy book cover. Many elements in the scene are so
interesting that it's not possible to just "glance" at it--the total effect
astounds me. The 'sum is bigger than its parts' so to speak. What grand
scale.
Those Pteranodons(?) are quite nice. A suggestion would be to give them a
more interesting texture, in keeping with the fantastical atmosphere of the
entire scene. Something more colorful, perhaps.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e87a1a220a28164e7d119a0@news.povray.org...
> Man-o-man, this has improved dramatically since I last saw it. Looks like
it
> could end up being a fantasy book cover. Many elements in the scene are so
> interesting that it's not possible to just "glance" at it--the total
effect
> astounds me. The 'sum is bigger than its parts' so to speak. What grand
> scale.
>
> Those Pteranodons(?) are quite nice. A suggestion would be to give them a
> more interesting texture, in keeping with the fantastical atmosphere of
the
> entire scene. Something more colorful, perhaps.
>
Thank you indeed!
Yes, going well, and the next version is pending (veeeeery slow because of a
media simulating the vapor at the base of the waterfall!!)
Good idea about the Pteranodons! I used the standard textures that came with
them, but I am going to change that. Thanks for mentioning that feature.
Maybe a leopard texture would be nice....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
