 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek 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...
>
All your images in your water series are impressive !
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.
Thibaut
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmail com> 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! :)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.455b3e24e4e3b873731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> I agree with others' comments on the boat; it's good to have something
> visible through the water, but a realistic boat to scale with the waves
> would be preferable.
Well other people were commenting on a different boat. This is a totally new
boat, much more realistic, and on the correct scale (IMO).
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] gmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
