 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, This is the state-of-the-art wip for my IRTC entry. All props are in
place; most things have turned out satisfyingly; still have to work on the
sky. Still a couple of weeks to go, so that should be possible.
At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
something with it (or not...:-))
Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'DownTheDrain (wip).jpg' (352 KB)
Preview of image 'DownTheDrain (wip).jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
452f73fe@news.povray.org...
> Well, This is the state-of-the-art wip for my IRTC entry. All props are in
> place; most things have turned out satisfyingly; still have to work on the
> sky. Still a couple of weeks to go, so that should be possible.
>
> At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
> something with it (or not...:-))
>
> Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
Wonderful image as usual!
If it is for IRTC,I think the collumns are too much, they drain attention
from the *absence* which is strong here.
I had a thought at doing an image on Aral sea and you are close to my
concept :-)
I'd see some other (not wrecked) ships instead of ruins
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
> something with it (or not...:-))
>
> Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
>
> Thomas
Can't find the drain or any evidence of water.
It might be an idea to have some reflective water gloss in the low lying
areas (residue areas/rocks), or to have cracked dry mud.
Also the bald hill on the left looks strangely unnatural with no vegetation
at the top.
But perhaps that's all part of your surreal intention.
DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht
news:452f8bf4$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>
> Wonderful image as usual!
Thanks Marc :-)
> If it is for IRTC,I think the collumns are too much, they drain attention
> from the *absence* which is strong here.
Hmm... Might be... still, I like them as they are things made invisible
(sea-level rise; tectonic subsidence) that appear again after draining the
water. It's a personal thing I guess. And it let me play with probability
selections to build them.
> I had a thought at doing an image on Aral sea and you are close to my
> concept :-)
Ah yes, the Aral Sea would have been nice to do, indeed. Lake Chad is
another one of those. I must say that the present image is a concept I have
turned over in my mind for many years now. Even wrote a short story around
it situated however, in the middle of the North Sea!
> I'd see some other (not wrecked) ships instead of ruins
I like those ruins <sniff>
>
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"dlm" <me### [at] addressinvalid> schreef in bericht
news:452f9451$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Can't find the drain or any evidence of water.
The water is indeed totally absent, so I should add some puddles. The drain
is there, in polished chrome metal! But as it reflects the surroundings and
the sky, it is hard to see. Look to the extreme right...
> It might be an idea to have some reflective water gloss in the low lying
> areas (residue areas/rocks), or to have cracked dry mud.
yes indeed.
> Also the bald hill on the left looks strangely unnatural with no
> vegetation at the top.
> But perhaps that's all part of your surreal intention.
Ah! it is!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
452fa4a8$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > I'd see some other (not wrecked) ships instead of ruins
> I like those ruins <sniff>
I like them too :)
IT is just that they weaken the topic if it is "absence" (if not it's ok :)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Excellent concept, and I love the image!
A few thoughts:
The muddy-seaweed texture on the columns and river bed looks OK from a
distance, but decidedly procedural from close up! I think a little more
work on this would improve it no end.
Not sure about the actual presence of the columns. If you remove the one in
the foreground, it may not be obvious what the others are... and the others
block the view along the river somewhat...
Maybe a jetty or pontoon on the left, with some stray vertical timbers to
indicate age? They could get the seaweed treatment instead? Just an idea.
The wreck and the stranded non-wreck look great, and I think the river-banks
look fine.
Bill
PS I'm quite looking forward to seeing the other entries for this round.
This topic should produce some real variety!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 452f73fe@news.povray.org...
> > Well, This is the state-of-the-art wip for my IRTC entry. All props are in
> > place; most things have turned out satisfyingly; still have to work on the
> > sky. Still a couple of weeks to go, so that should be possible.
> >
> > At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
> > something with it (or not...:-))
> >
> > Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> Wonderful image as usual!
> If it is for IRTC,I think the collumns are too much, they drain attention
> from the *absence* which is strong here.
> I had a thought at doing an image on Aral sea and you are close to my
> concept :-)
> I'd see some other (not wrecked) ships instead of ruins
>
> Marc
AAH! Aral Sea! You chose EXACTLY the concept I am working on! I suppose it
wasn't such a stretch to think of it-- still, I thought I would get lucky
:)
Great minds... and all that I suppose. And of course Thomas has done a very
similar theme as well.
Well, I think I will enter anyway, I doubt our realizations will be too
similar, Alain.
-Stefan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> Well, This is the state-of-the-art wip for my IRTC entry. All props are in
> place; most things have turned out satisfyingly; still have to work on the
> sky. Still a couple of weeks to go, so that should be possible.
>
> At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
> something with it (or not...:-))
>
> Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
>
> Thomas
Thomas: an excellent image! I love your concept (uncomfortably close to
mine...) and I think you have executed it very well. I like the
slime/seaweed especially, maybe it should coat the rocks and shells a
little bit too? Right now the nubbly tan rocks look like they were put
there later (but they are very rocklike).
The decayed and abandoned ships I like very much- you model them with
primitives? Also: the closest pillar is a little too close for the texture
to work, in my opinion. The edges on it should be more rounded, from ages
beneath the sea, and it should have little pockmarks and roughness- or just
move it a little away from the camera, and "feature" the decaying hull
instead.
Also, I was unable to find the drain. More prominent?
Just my $.02... Good work!
Stefan Sittler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas
Beautiful procedural textures, as always in your work. Strange atmosphere.
Only is missing an archeologist wotking with a toothbrush.
Friendly
Rémy
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
452f73fe@news.povray.org...
> Well, This is the state-of-the-art wip for my IRTC entry. All props are in
> place; most things have turned out satisfyingly; still have to work on the
> sky. Still a couple of weeks to go, so that should be possible.
>
> At this stage, I am truly interested in your criticism, so that I can do
> something with it (or not...:-))
>
> Oh! by the way! Found the Drain? Look better. It is there...
>
> Thomas
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
web.452fc005196f9067da53d9e40@news.povray.org...
> AAH! Aral Sea! You chose EXACTLY the concept I am working on! I suppose it
> wasn't such a stretch to think of it-- still, I thought I would get lucky
> :)
>
> Great minds... and all that I suppose. And of course Thomas has done a
very
> similar theme as well.
>
> Well, I think I will enter anyway, I doubt our realizations will be too
> similar, Alain.
>
> -Stefan
>
I won't enter this round so we can't compare :)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.452fad00196f9067731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Excellent concept, and I love the image!
>
Thank you indeed, Bill!
> A few thoughts:
> The muddy-seaweed texture on the columns and river bed looks OK from a
> distance, but decidedly procedural from close up! I think a little more
> work on this would improve it no end.
> Not sure about the actual presence of the columns. If you remove the one
> in
> the foreground, it may not be obvious what the others are... and the
> others
> block the view along the river somewhat...
> Maybe a jetty or pontoon on the left, with some stray vertical timbers to
> indicate age? They could get the seaweed treatment instead? Just an idea.
>
Yes, the seaweed is a problem I was aware of for the foreground, especially
as the camera is very close to the ground. It certainly needs more work.
Best should be to detach it completely from the texture and apply it
separately...
The columns seem to interfere with the theme, I understand. I shall try to
replace them and see what that will result in. he jetty idea was there but I
didn't complete it. The problem might be the size of the scene. The jetty
may become to small in relation to the rest. Hmmm. Have to experiment.
Note that this is more a fjord-sized estuary than a river, and thus also
much deeper than a conventional river would be. The outlet is invisible
here, but situated to the right, behind the lighthouse.
> The wreck and the stranded non-wreck look great, and I think the
> river-banks
> look fine.
>
The wreck I built in Silo 1.4; the stranded ship is a detailed third-party
mesh.
> PS I'm quite looking forward to seeing the other entries for this round.
> This topic should produce some real variety!
>
Yes, me too!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht
news:452fab1d$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> > I'd see some other (not wrecked) ships instead of ruins
>> I like those ruins <sniff>
> I like them too :)
> IT is just that they weaken the topic if it is "absence" (if not it's ok
> :)
>
Yeah... that's true.
Never understood why those guys built right at that place... They ruined my
picture!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Smws" <smw### [at] poboxcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.452fc233196f9067da53d9e40@news.povray.org...
>
> Thomas: an excellent image! I love your concept (uncomfortably close to
> mine...) and I think you have executed it very well. I like the
> slime/seaweed especially, maybe it should coat the rocks and shells a
> little bit too? Right now the nubbly tan rocks look like they were put
> there later (but they are very rocklike).
>
Thank you indeed Stefan!
I am curious to see your work. I waited (almost) till the end before showing
this image, not to be too much influenced by others, or influence others
instead. Now, in the last straight line, it does not matter so much.
There is more effort to be put into the seaweed. That will be more difficult
I am afraid.
> The decayed and abandoned ships I like very much- you model them with
> primitives? Also: the closest pillar is a little too close for the texture
> to work, in my opinion. The edges on it should be more rounded, from ages
> beneath the sea, and it should have little pockmarks and roughness- or
> just
> move it a little away from the camera, and "feature" the decaying hull
> instead.
>
The decayed ship I modelled in Silo1.4 and exported (through Poseray) to a
mesh2. Very rapidly, so it is not really a sea-worthy ship, but to bring the
idea over. The stranded ship is a detailed third party mesh.
> Also, I was unable to find the drain. More prominent?
Well, I prefer it to remain almost invisible and not draw too much
attention. It is just a little joke added.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Remy Closset" <rem### [at] neuffr> schreef in bericht
news:452fc697$1@news.povray.org...
> Thomas
>
> Beautiful procedural textures, as always in your work. Strange atmosphere.
> Only is missing an archeologist wotking with a toothbrush.
>
Thank you Remy!
Yes, the archeologist could be added indeed (after the IRTC). I shall think
about it.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am presently at a loss to solve this puzzle:
- I have the seaweed on the sand coded as a layered texture (sand texture +
weed texture);
- I have the shells traced randomly in a while loop, with their own texture;
- I have those columns also traced randomly, with a layered texture (stone +
weed);
- How can I make the seaweed also cover any object on the sand (shells or
others)? I cannot do this by putting a weed texture on top of a union of the
HF and the random objects.
So, what would be a practical solution? Do the same as for the columns?
The problem is that I have to carefully rescale the weed texture each time.
I did not really do that for the stones on the sand for instance, and you
see the difference.
Any smart idea?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> - How can I make the seaweed also cover any object on the sand (shells or
> others)? I cannot do this by putting a weed texture on top of a union of the
> HF and the random objects.
Pre-declare a weed texture. Apply it to objects after all transformations...
then objects in the same place should end up textured the same. If you need
different scale factors, use different weed textures.
I have no idea if that will help!
I sympathise; I had some real headaches getting the moss texture onto the
bricks in my knotworld...
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 14/10/2006 03:18:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
> news:web.452fad00196f9067731f01d10@news.povray.org...
>> Excellent concept, and I love the image!
> Thank you indeed, Bill!
>> A few thoughts:
>> The muddy-seaweed texture on the columns and river bed looks OK from a
>> distance, but decidedly procedural from close up! I think a little more
>> work on this would improve it no end.
>> Not sure about the actual presence of the columns. If you remove the one
>> in
>> the foreground, it may not be obvious what the others are... and the
>> others
>> block the view along the river somewhat...
>> Maybe a jetty or pontoon on the left, with some stray vertical timbers to
>> indicate age? They could get the seaweed treatment instead? Just an idea.
> Yes, the seaweed is a problem I was aware of for the foreground, especially
> as the camera is very close to the ground. It certainly needs more work.
> Best should be to detach it completely from the texture and apply it
> separately...
> The columns seem to interfere with the theme, I understand. I shall try to
> replace them and see what that will result in. he jetty idea was there but I
> didn't complete it. The problem might be the size of the scene. The jetty
> may become to small in relation to the rest. Hmmm. Have to experiment.
> Note that this is more a fjord-sized estuary than a river, and thus also
> much deeper than a conventional river would be. The outlet is invisible
> here, but situated to the right, behind the lighthouse.
>> The wreck and the stranded non-wreck look great, and I think the
>> river-banks
>> look fine.
> The wreck I built in Silo 1.4; the stranded ship is a detailed third-party
> mesh.
>> PS I'm quite looking forward to seeing the other entries for this round.
>> This topic should produce some real variety!
> Yes, me too!
> Thomas
You can reduce the number of columns, just keeping a very few. Now, there will
be 2 things missing: the water and some very old, once submerged, building. Keep
the slanted ones.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you have one lawyer in town, he goes hungry.
If you have two lawyers in town, they both get rich.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Down the Drain (wip): Seaweed problem
Date: 15 Oct 2006 03:08:23
Message: <4531de67@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.4530f31d52e313ca73aa1b360@news.povray.org...
> Pre-declare a weed texture. Apply it to objects after all
> transformations...
> then objects in the same place should end up textured the same. If you
> need
> different scale factors, use different weed textures.
>
Hmm... essentially, that is what I did already. The main problem is that the
different object categories (stones, shells, column segments, wood fragment)
have their own basic texture already. I have been playing with the idea -
like you suggest - to add a final weed texture after everything is done, but
that doesn't work (or I did it wrong). Only the basic textures appear, not
the overlying weed texture.
> I sympathise; I had some real headaches getting the moss texture onto the
> bricks in my knotworld...
>
I can very well imagine!! Thanks indeed for the idea.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> schreef in bericht
news:4530f622@news.povray.org...
>
> You can reduce the number of columns, just keeping a very few. Now, there
> will be 2 things missing: the water and some very old, once submerged,
> building. Keep the slanted ones.
>
Yes, that is a nice solution indeed. Thanks!!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Down the Drain (wip): Seaweed problem
Date: 15 Oct 2006 03:49:09
Message: <4531e7f5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK. Did some experimenting with layered textures. This does not work. A
pity, as I find it more *elegant* :
//------------------------------------
#declare Group =
union {
box {
<-1, -1, -1>, <1, 1, 1>
translate <-0.3, 0.0, -0.5>
texture {Layer1 scale 0.1}
}
sphere {
<0,0,0>,1
translate <0.8, -0.6, 0.3>
texture {Layer2 scale 0.1}
}
texture {YellowTransparantColor}
}
object {Group}
//------------------------------------
But this does what I want (see the image):
//------------------------------------
#declare Group =
union {
box {
<-1, -1, -1>, <1, 1, 1>
translate <-0.3, 0.0, -0.5>
texture {Layer1 scale 0.1}
texture {YellowTransparantColor}
}
sphere {
<0,0,0>,1
translate <0.8, -0.6, 0.3>
texture {Layer2 scale 0.1}
texture {YellowTransparantColor}
}
}
object {Group}
//------------------------------------
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'layeredTexture_test.png' (103 KB)
Preview of image 'layeredTexture_test.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Thomas de Groot who wrote:
>OK. Did some experimenting with layered textures. This does not work. A
>pity, as I find it more *elegant* :
>//------------------------------------
>#declare Group =
>union {
> box {
> <-1, -1, -1>, <1, 1, 1>
> translate <-0.3, 0.0, -0.5>
> texture {Layer1 scale 0.1}
> }
> sphere {
> <0,0,0>,1
> translate <0.8, -0.6, 0.3>
> texture {Layer2 scale 0.1}
> }
> texture {YellowTransparantColor}
>}
The problem is that that syntax is already in use to mean something
different.
What it means is, apply YellowTransparantColor to any components in the
group that don't already have their own texture{}. In this case, all the
components do have their own texture, so nothing happens.
You wouldn't want to change that old syntax, because it would break
large numbers of existing scenes. You wouldn't want the syntax to have
the old meaning if there are any untextured components and have the new
meaning if there are none, because that would get very confusing
particularly if you intended to texture all the components but missed a
tiny part of a very complex CSG.
--
The Blackpool Community Church Javascript Team
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/googlemaps/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
[Snip]
> --
> The Blackpool Community Church Javascript Team
The mind boggles Mike :-)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Williams" <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> schreef in bericht
news:YiwFXRANd1MFFw+j### [at] econymdemoncouk...
>
> The problem is that that syntax is already in use to mean something
> different.
>
> What it means is, apply YellowTransparantColor to any components in the
> group that don't already have their own texture{}. In this case, all the
> components do have their own texture, so nothing happens.
>
> You wouldn't want to change that old syntax, because it would break
> large numbers of existing scenes. You wouldn't want the syntax to have
> the old meaning if there are any untextured components and have the new
> meaning if there are none, because that would get very confusing
> particularly if you intended to texture all the components but missed a
> tiny part of a very complex CSG.
>
> --
Thank you Mike, for your explanation. I was sure there was a catch :-)
What I meant by *elegant* was in the same line as when you talk about
clothes: they may be *elegant* but not necessarily confortable to wear! So,
only for the eyes fixed on the catwalk.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
