 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
please stop posting photographs here, Tek. :)
seriously, this sea is perfect! why are you tweaking it yet? the foam
looks nice, the boat is much better and the shot from above is much more
pleasing! :)
hey, if povray's standard include files ever get a facelift, would you mind
having your sea in it? see the discussion:
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.4558993a8d8f92ab3976a8750@news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=19
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:web.455ba62fe4e3b8732e704a1e0@news.povray.org...
> hey, if povray's standard include files ever get a facelift, would you
> mind
> having your sea in it?
Sounds cool to me. Though surely it would be an example scene not a standard
include? it's not a terribly generic effect.
Though having said that you can pretty easily tweak the "storminess" and
"foaminess"...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "Thibaut Jonckheere" <tua### [at] yahoofr> wrote in message
> news:455b70ab$1@news.povray.org...
> > Here, I prefer the second one. The small detail thats bugs me is the fact
> > that the water is so clear (the boat is seen so clearly) - I would expect
> > to have much less visibility, because of impurities, algae, etc.
>
> I agree, I think the bright white on the boat looks way to bright for
> something submerged. I'm going to adjust the boat colours and/or water
> transparency.
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
deep. The transparency looks right to me. Both images are good the second
*AWESOME HESPERUS* :-)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.455c23e6e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> I don't agree. >
Neither do I.
From my experience on ships and in rough seas, the water can be extremely
clear, allowing you to see down to several metres.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Really? Every time I've seen things underwater in the ocean it's been very
hard to see any kind of distance.
Anyway, here's a less transparent version, discuss :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:455c3ca5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> news:web.455c23e6e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I don't agree. >
>
> Neither do I.
> From my experience on ships and in rough seas, the water can be extremely
> clear, allowing you to see down to several metres.
>
> Thomas
>
>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ridgedmf.jpg' (245 KB)
Preview of image 'ridgedmf.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
455c64f0@news.povray.org...
> Really? Every time I've seen things underwater in the ocean it's been very
> hard to see any kind of distance.
>
> Anyway, here's a less transparent version, discuss :)
I think transparency is realistic here (and your sea is great!)
But when a ship is sinking, the water is saturated with bubbles
http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/erika-naufrage-1999-2.jpg
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Really? Every time I've seen things underwater in the ocean it's been very
> hard to see any kind of distance.
It depends where you are looking from. If you are close to shore the
turbulence stirs up a lot of sand and cuts down the visibility. If you are
offshore in deep water the sea is clearer. Also if you are higher that a
few yards above the surface you get better visibility through the top layer
of water. I spent about sixteen years working on oilrigs and can say that
your latest images are quire realistic. One other thing, some rust marks
would not go amiss on your ship :-) The rust stains would come from the
bilge pumps even on a fibreglass hull.
> Anyway, here's a less transparent version, discuss :)
>
Although waves are said to be fractal and it is difficult to get a sense of
scale from them the foam defines the scale for me. I would say that these
waves are no more that two meters high. (The lifebelt reinforces this) This
jars with the scale of ship, to my eyes. You know RL often does not measure
up to our imagination -)
Can you change the ship for a yacht? (Shakes both hands in a Tommy Cooper
deserves the best.
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
> news:455c3ca5$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> > "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:web.455c23e6e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> >>
> >> I don't agree. >
> >
> > Neither do I.
> > From my experience on ships and in rough seas, the water can be extremely
> > clear, allowing you to see down to several metres.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:455b4f6d$1@news.povray.org...
> > How easily can you animate it? There's probably a good-paying job out
> > there for you if you can.
>
> Well I had a go at animating it, it looks terrible. I think I could get
> something good if I replace the ridged_mf function with a home-grown version
> where I can animate each octave independantly, but it would probalby still
> look a bit wierd and I can't be bothered putting that much effort in! :)
>
I'd talk to fidos if you wan't it animated. He's done some AWESOME fluid
simulations (using his own computational fluid dynamics engine) in
povray.binaries.animations
:-)
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.455c6b93e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> It depends where you are looking from. If you are close to shore the
> turbulence stirs up a lot of sand and cuts down the visibility. If you are
> offshore in deep water the sea is clearer. Also if you are higher that a
> few yards above the surface you get better visibility through the top
> layer
> of water. I spent about sixteen years working on oilrigs and can say that
> your latest images are quire realistic. One other thing, some rust marks
> would not go amiss on your ship :-) The rust stains would come from the
> bilge pumps even on a fibreglass hull.
>
Yes, like Stephen says. I often observed from the deck of a ship that in a
turbulent sea, once in a while, you get suddenly whole stretches of a
perfectly smooth surface, mostly in the wave troughs of course, through
which you can look down into the depth. It only happens for a few seconds
and then the surface clouds over once more, as it were.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> A couple of different versions with a more detailed & more appropriately
> scaled boat.
>
> Opinions? I'm starting to get a bit lost on this project, to be honest...
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
I'd like to help. Can you tell us why you think you made this image in the
first place? Is there a certain goal in mind? IRTC? If so, what would the
topic be?
Thanks,
George
MegaPOV XRS parallel rendering patch: http://www.gammaburst.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
