It's been a while since my last post, I was waiting until I got a render 
with no errors in it, but that doesn't look likely any time soon. So here we 
have the current stage of development.

Some big changes:
-A totally different volcano shape, with a much more violent feel to it. I 
like it but think maybe I went too far...
-The flying lava doesn't travel so far now, based on reference photos, 
though in this shot it's become too subtle so I'll crank it up some more.
-Lava rivers turned off -temporarily-! I was "improving" the algorithm, so 
currently it's totally broken.
-Heat haze underwater, looks a bit strange so I might get rid of it. But 
maybe when I put bubbles of steam in there it might all come together.
-Mountains! Finally the white cones in the background look like something 
real

And finally, the biggest change: All kindsa funky Megapov post-processing 
lens filters! Now before anyone criticises me for doing post processing 
please compare it to my IRTC winning entry from a couple of rounds ago, 
where I did a bunch of very similar effects the super-slow standard-pov way. 
At least doing them the megapov way just adds a short bit of time to the 
render, rather than making it 20 times slower!

Also, my suite of funky lens effects takes the form of a nicely 
parameterized include file which I will be distributing with the source to 
this image when I submit it to the IRTC. Ain't I nice?

Still to do:
-The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
-fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
-steam wherever lava touches water/snow
-...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any 
suggestions?

And that's about it. What do you think?

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (348 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'

Tek wrote:
> And that's about it. What do you think?

   It's looking quite good.

   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
even though I can't put my finger on it.
   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.

Post a reply to this message

Awesome!
The underwater is superb, looks like a photo: is the effect of the funky
lens?
Curious to see the final work!
;-)
Paolo

> "Tek" wrote
>
> It's been a while since my last post, I was waiting until I got a render
> with no errors in it, but that doesn't look likely any time soon. So here
we
> have the current stage of development.
>
> Some big changes:
> -A totally different volcano shape, with a much more violent feel to it. I
> like it but think maybe I went too far...
> -The flying lava doesn't travel so far now, based on reference photos,
> though in this shot it's become too subtle so I'll crank it up some more.
> -Lava rivers turned off -temporarily-! I was "improving" the algorithm, so
> currently it's totally broken.
> -Heat haze underwater, looks a bit strange so I might get rid of it. But
> maybe when I put bubbles of steam in there it might all come together.
> -Mountains! Finally the white cones in the background look like something
> real
>
> And finally, the biggest change: All kindsa funky Megapov post-processing
> lens filters! Now before anyone criticises me for doing post processing
> please compare it to my IRTC winning entry from a couple of rounds ago,
> where I did a bunch of very similar effects the super-slow standard-pov
way.
> At least doing them the megapov way just adds a short bit of time to the
> render, rather than making it 20 times slower!
>
> Also, my suite of funky lens effects takes the form of a nicely
> parameterized include file which I will be distributing with the source to
> this image when I submit it to the IRTC. Ain't I nice?
>
> Still to do:
> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why
> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
> -steam wherever lava touches water/snow
> -...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any
> suggestions?
>
> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I definitely agree, there's something that just doesn't quite look right. 
But I can't put my finger on it. At the moment I suspect it's the sky colour 
not matching the lighting & fog... maybe...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
>   It's looking quite good.
>
>   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
> even though I can't put my finger on it.
>   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.

Post a reply to this message

your progress is impressing.

Personally the underwater section looks quite good now and much better than
in WIP4.
In doubt I'ld concentrate my efforts on the media problems you mentioned,
otherwise some small bubbles would help a bit.
Some short remarks
- your old vulcanic shape was very symmetric, the new one is much more
visually pleasant.
- more flying lava please!
- and some bigger lava chunks too.
- perhaps such a big chunk hits the water surface at the left image part?
- meanwhile the fire is really good, but the ice aspect of the topic isn't -
perhaps one or more ice floes swimming at the left side or at the shoreline
can help.
- comparing the first WIPs with WIP5 you show more sky now. Perhaps you
should move the camera look_at a bit to the right.

I'm eagerly awaiting your source code...

Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> And that's about it. What do you think?

   Can't think right now... I'm atonished. Perhaps later... :)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> 
> Still to do:
> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers

I think you will have to modify the terrain geometry for that.

> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)

Do you have sufficient max_trace_level?

> -steam wherever lava touches water/snow
> -...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any 
> suggestions?

Maybe some landslide - would be reasonable to occur during a vulcanic 
eruption...

Concerning realism - it is extremely difficult to achieve an impression 
of realism for the viewer with such an image where hardly anyone has a 
real life experience to compare to.  None the less i think the smoke is 
too fluffy.

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

Tek wrote:

> [snip]

Great work. I'd seen your previous posts, but this is a major step ahead.
Waiting to see the final image.
Bye
-- 
Txemi Jendrix.
Povray and CG: www.txemijendrix.com
Music: www.losmiercoles.net

Post a reply to this message

WOW

-- 
#####-----#####-----#####
POV Tips and Hints at ...
http://povman.blogspot.com/

Post a reply to this message

Still amazing.
caution: critical comments follow.

Lets see. Scale. The volcano is about 300px tall or 1000m per a previous
post or about 3m per pixel at the summit.
There's ultra-mega-coarse grain lava up there. You might find that with an
old inactive and eroded volcano I suppose, and this is not that. Also all
the smoke and dust must dull the snow off some?

And your slopes are still way too steep to be realistic (about 120+ degrees
at summit).
Check http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/kilauea/erupt/2553022_L.jpg
for a dose of realism with a new volcano 250m above the plain.
The photo gallery of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory is replete with all
sorts of well annotated pictures including hi-res.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/gallery/

The alternative is Disney :(

DLM


"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:43f2f8fa@news.povray.org...
> I definitely agree, there's something that just doesn't quite look right.
> But I can't put my finger on it. At the moment I suspect it's the sky
colour
> not matching the lighting & fog... maybe...
>
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
> > Tek wrote:
> >> And that's about it. What do you think?
> >
> >   It's looking quite good.
> >
> >   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
> > even though I can't put my finger on it.
> >   It might perhaps be that the contrast in the snow is too strong.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
>   It's looking quite good.
>
>   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
> even though I can't put my finger on it.


  The bounding box for the immediate fire/flames from the top of the volcano 
shows too much?

   Not sure if anyone else can see this?


   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:dsv5jr$n3f$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Tek wrote:
>>
>> Still to do:
>> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
>
> I think you will have to modify the terrain geometry for that.
>
>> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
>> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
>
> Do you have sufficient max_trace_level?

  Ah, great minds...

  ~Steve~



> Christoph

Post a reply to this message

Mmmm, I like it...

Post a reply to this message

Yeah that's the elliptical error I mentioned. I can see it, it's a mistake, 
it will be fixed. Though I'm annoyed pov can't handle having 2 
media-containers overlapping without artefacts.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:43f37a88@news.povray.org...
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:43f2e627$1@news.povray.org...
>> Tek wrote:
>>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>>
>>   It's looking quite good.
>>
>>   However, there's still some non-photorealistic quality to it,
>> even though I can't put my finger on it.
>
>
>  The bounding box for the immediate fire/flames from the top of the 
> volcano shows too much?
>
>   Not sure if anyone else can see this?
>
>
>   ~Steve~
>
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Well, the max trace level I'd need to show that bit correctly would be at 
most 6, and my max trace is currently 80!

The problem seems to simply be I have 2 different media-containers that 
happen to overlap, it seems pov carves a hole out of one of them where it 
finds the other. I was getting some horiffic errors from the flying lava 
until I differenced it with the smoke's media container. The errors looked 
like shadows through the media but bright white. Anyway my experience is 
media "just does that sometimes" and you need to help it understand where 
the division is between your surfaces by using differences and such, I was 
just hoping someone understood the technical aspect of this better than me. 
i.e. I can work round it, but I'd like to know why I have to :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com


"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message 
news:dsv5jr$n3f$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Tek wrote:
>>
>> Still to do:
>> -The aforementioned resurrection of the lava rivers
>
> I think you will have to modify the terrain geometry for that.
>
>> -fix that eliptical bug round the top of the volcano (anyone know why 
>> overlapping media-containers don't play nice together?)
>
> Do you have sufficient max_trace_level?
>
>> -steam wherever lava touches water/snow
>> -...and something else... the left side of the image looks too calm, any 
>> suggestions?
>
> Maybe some landslide - would be reasonable to occur during a vulcanic 
> eruption...
>
> Concerning realism - it is extremely difficult to achieve an impression of 
> realism for the viewer with such an image where hardly anyone has a real 
> life experience to compare to.  None the less i think the smoke is too 
> fluffy.
>
> 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 a great improvement, Tek!

Still, some unconfortable feelings. Although the shape of the volcano is
much better, I think the slope is too steep. Volcano slopes are mainly made
up of rubble and the "maximum angle of repose" of loose material is about 37
degrees. This concerns all kind of slopes like screes, or dunes too. Your
slope (to the left) is about 50 degrees.

Your underwater view is impressive indeed. Still, I feel that the flow is
too thin to be really believable and natural looking. I would expect a more
massive "wall" of lava with those fiery blobs sticking out.

Sorry for these comments! They come from my professional background mainly.
You have created a great image already!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> up of rubble and the "maximum angle of repose" of loose material is about 37
> degrees. This concerns all kind of slopes like screes, or dunes too. Your

Aren't the Pyramids of Egypt built at a 37 degree angle as well?

...Chambers

(Sorry, a bit OT)

Post a reply to this message

This is looking much better, the sky looks better now you have made the blue
darker nearer the top and this (plus other changes I am sure) makes the
water looks much better too. The darker colour of the smoke is also an
improvement.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

> The problem seems to simply be I have 2 different media-containers that
> happen to overlap, it seems pov carves a hole out of one of them where it
> finds the other.

The problem, I believe, is that your sampling parameters aren't high enough.
POV-Ray isn't taking enough samples of the media, so you're getting
incorrect results. When there's only one container, the result looks good
enough that you don't have to worry about it - but when a ray passes through
two containers, the places the samples are taken change, so you get a
*different* incorrect result.

As you improve your sampling parameters ("samples n" where n is high (start
at 10 or so and work your way up)), the effect should diminish, but the
render will also get slower.

If you can put both medias into one container, you can eliminate the problem
that way - but you'll be sampling both medias everywhere, which will hurt
performance.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

That's certainly a problem I've seen before, though I suspect that's not it 
because I've already cranked the samples up pretty high. Having said that, 
the difference in size between the 2 containers is vast, so maybe even with 
a lot of samples they're still quite coarse in the overlapping area...

But you're right, if I up the number of samples I can tell if that's the 
problem... a few hours later when it finishes rendering... :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:43f548d2$1@news.povray.org...
>> The problem seems to simply be I have 2 different media-containers that
>> happen to overlap, it seems pov carves a hole out of one of them where it
>> finds the other.
>
> The problem, I believe, is that your sampling parameters aren't high 
> enough.
> POV-Ray isn't taking enough samples of the media, so you're getting
> incorrect results. When there's only one container, the result looks good
> enough that you don't have to worry about it - but when a ray passes 
> through
> two containers, the places the samples are taken change, so you get a
> *different* incorrect result.
>
> As you improve your sampling parameters ("samples n" where n is high 
> (start
> at 10 or so and work your way up)), the effect should diminish, but the
> render will also get slower.
>
> If you can put both medias into one container, you can eliminate the 
> problem
> that way - but you'll be sampling both medias everywhere, which will hurt
> performance.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Your underwater view is impressive indeed. Still, I feel that the flow is
> too thin to be really believable and natural looking. I would expect a 
> more
> massive "wall" of lava with those fiery blobs sticking out.

That might be what you'd expect, but it's not what really happens. I've said 
it before and I'll say it again, reference!: 
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/concepts/pillows.html (watch 
the video at the bottom of the page).

And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the 
composition to work with steeper edges. After all I'm not really going for 
realism... Oh hold on I just contradicted myself :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message 
news:43f43ab5@news.povray.org...
> This is a great improvement, Tek!
>
> Still, some unconfortable feelings. Although the shape of the volcano is
> much better, I think the slope is too steep. Volcano slopes are mainly 
> made
> up of rubble and the "maximum angle of repose" of loose material is about 
> 37
> degrees. This concerns all kind of slopes like screes, or dunes too. Your
> slope (to the left) is about 50 degrees.
>
> Your underwater view is impressive indeed. Still, I feel that the flow is
> too thin to be really believable and natural looking. I would expect a 
> more
> massive "wall" of lava with those fiery blobs sticking out.
>
> Sorry for these comments! They come from my professional background 
> mainly.
> You have created a great image already!
>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
news:43f57d46$1@news.povray.org...
... Oh hold on I just contradicted myself :)
>

That's allright! ;-)
It is part of the artistic liberty! Just go on, your image is overwhelming
<cough (smoke & ash)> already!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

No suggestions beyond what has already been said, but...

Great, great work. I've yet to master media in this way, and it looks just
fantastic. The above-below water split (although uncomplicated, I'm sure)
is also something I've never seen before.

Keep 'em coming... a classic in the making!

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the 
> composition to work with steeper edges.

Do you mean without?  I believe the point was that your volcano is *too* 
steep to be realistic :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Doh yes that was a typo. It doesn't work without steep edges. Well spotted 
:)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:43f602f2$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>> And regarding the slope, you're entirely right, but I can't get the 
>> composition to work with steeper edges.
>
> Do you mean without?  I believe the point was that your volcano is *too* 
> steep to be realistic :)
>
> ...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Knocks my entry into a cocked hat ... amazing image and would probably get a
place even with no further changes.

Some constructive criticism...

The smoke towards the edges of the image is too blurred.  In all photos I've
seen of a real-life eruption, the edges of the smoke plume are very
well-defined due to the sheer scale of it all and the fact that it won't be
moving upwards quickly enough to create any kind of motion blur).

The top-most edge of the crater is very sharply-defined and stands out a
little too much ... maybe place some smoke media in front of the edge to
blur it out a little?

Ian.

Post a reply to this message

"IanT" <ian### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.43f6832d84388aa0e27474a40@news.povray.org...
> Knocks my entry into a cocked hat ... amazing image and would probably get 
> a
> place even with no further changes.
>
> Some constructive criticism...
>
> The smoke towards the edges of the image is too blurred.  In all photos 
> I've
> seen of a real-life eruption, the edges of the smoke plume are very
> well-defined due to the sheer scale of it all and the fact that it won't 
> be
> moving upwards quickly enough to create any kind of motion blur).

Yeah I think so too. I tried making the media a bit sharper but it caused 
too many artefacts. I might go with an isosurface and completely constant 
media density instead... hmm...

> The top-most edge of the crater is very sharply-defined and stands out a
> little too much ... maybe place some smoke media in front of the edge to
> blur it out a little?

Yeah, or maybe make it glow and blend into the lava... I'll try some things, 
thanks for the suggestions very helpful :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message news:43f2e4e8@news.povray.org...

> And that's about it. What do you think?

I think it looks kewl.

One suggestion, you know for realism - The invisible camera appears to be half in and
half out of the water so that you can see both 
the underwater lava as well as the volcano. How about a few water drops on the camera
lens above water line to give the viewer a 
sense of perspective?

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Good suggestion, but to make this shot work I've had to cheat and stick the 
camera inside a 1m hole carved into the ocean. i.e. a real camera couldn't 
get this view because the camera is actually quite a long way above the 
surface of the water -which is how come we can see the top but not the 
bottom of the water surface- and if I make it lower it totally destroys the 
composition. So, water droplets would have to be 1m away to be consistent, 
which would only serve to emphasize the trickery that I'm doing.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Ken" <ken### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43f77913$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
> news:43f2e4e8@news.povray.org...
>
>> And that's about it. What do you think?
>
> I think it looks kewl.
>
> One suggestion, you know for realism - The invisible camera appears to be 
> half in and half out of the water so that you can see both the underwater 
> lava as well as the volcano. How about a few water drops on the camera 
> lens above water line to give the viewer a sense of perspective?
>
> Ken
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:43f787e0$1@news.povray.org...
> camera inside a 1m hole carved into the ocean. i.e. a real camera couldn't 
> get this view because the camera is actually quite a long way above the 
> surface of the water -which is how come we can see the top but not the 
> bottom of the water surface-

Saw this cool (and hot) WIP a while ago and I didn't even see the lower part 
until the third time I looked because I wasn't scrolling down far enough!

Ken's idea seems feasible to me. I can see how adding water droplets on an 
imaginary lens might be difficult if you were to want them to be out of 
focus from the nearness, but since the waterline is sharply focused that 
could mean droplets might look okay. Maybe simply some blobs suspended out 
there?

What this got me thinking about is the pillow lava needing broiling water 
coming from the molten seams. Oh... wait... I'm reading your original 
message again and that has been planned already. ;)

I really like the special-effects appearance you've created.

About that pesky media overlap problem... how about moving them away from 
each other yet keeping scaled and translated to be seen correctly along the 
line of sight?

Someone else suggested dirtying the snow in places, which I think would be a 
nice touch. Perhaps possible to overlay a texture or add it into the one 
already being used? Unless that causes a layering a layered texture error in 
doing that.

Bob H

Post a reply to this message

I was showing some random guy the work I'm doing on my current entry... 
And then I showed him this and said "this is what I'm up against".

His response was "wow, that's really amazing!"

Just thought you'd like to know...

Post a reply to this message

lol, thanks!

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Orchid XP v2" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:44005cd3$1@news.povray.org...
>I was showing some random guy the work I'm doing on my current entry... And 
>then I showed him this and said "this is what I'm up against".
>
> His response was "wow, that's really amazing!"
>
> Just thought you'd like to know...

Post a reply to this message