 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"George Pantazopoulos" <go### [at] tomyaboutpage> wrote in message
news:web.455c8036e4e3b873c0bad8570@news.povray.org...
> 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
But then that would be an animation of a different effect, not my sea.
There's a fundamental difference between a simulation and a ridged
multifractal that I don't think can be ignored here...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "George Pantazopoulos" <go### [at] tomyaboutpage> wrote in message
> news:web.455c8036e4e3b873c0bad8570@news.povray.org...
> > 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
>
> But then that would be an animation of a different effect, not my sea.
> There's a fundamental difference between a simulation and a ridged
> multifractal that I don't think can be ignored here...
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
You've got a point, but have you seen his stuff? Check out his "Liquid
Animation" series
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
news:web.455c6b93e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> 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
> movement :-). I'm sorry if I sound nitpicking but it is such good sea it
> deserves the best.
I think perhaps you're confused about what ship I'm using. if you look
closely you might notice this is no longer a huge ocean liner, I've replaced
it with a more appropriatly scaled trawler (as noted in my first post in
this thread).
To make this a bit more visible, here's a render without any water, and one
with the boat moved closer to the camera & life ring for comparison of
scale.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'boatclose.jpg' (76 KB)
Download 'nowater.jpg' (51 KB)
Preview of image 'boatclose.jpg'
Preview of image 'nowater.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"George Pantazopoulos" <go### [at] tomyaboutpage> wrote in message
news:web.455c84ffe4e3b873c0bad8570@news.povray.org...
> You've got a point, but have you seen his stuff? Check out his "Liquid
> Animation" series
Yeah I've seen it, to be honest it's never looked quite right to me, sorta
like jelly (that's jello, for you americans).
I've seen better, check out the R&D video here:
http://www.scanlinevfx.com/gallery.html
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:web.455c6b93e4e3b873f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> > 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
> > movement :-). I'm sorry if I sound nitpicking but it is such good sea it
> > deserves the best.
>
> I think perhaps you're confused about what ship I'm using. if you look
> closely you might notice this is no longer a huge ocean liner, I've replaced
> it with a more appropriatly scaled trawler (as noted in my first post in
> this thread).
>
> To make this a bit more visible, here's a render without any water, and one
> with the boat moved closer to the camera & life ring for comparison of
> scale.
>
Yes you are right I was still thinking about the liner. Strange how after
BTW I asked a work colleague to look at
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C455b17c1%40news.povray.org%3E/ridgedmf2.jpg
He worked offshore longer than me and when I said that it was a cg not a
photograph.
Endit.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek 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 how warm the water is, as well as the rest of the effects. In
cold water, algae can live, and they're usually maybe 6 inches deep down
to four or five feet deep, because they have to avoid being exposed to
direct sun, but close enough to get the light. A storm would stir them up.
Down south, where the main source of opacity is inorganic life (i.e.,
sand), deep water stays clear near the top even in fairly violent storms.
Of course, the scuba still sucks after a storm, because the things you
want to look at are all near the bottom, not the surface.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Scruffitarianism - Where T-shirt, jeans,
and a three-day beard are "Sunday Best."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
