 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ridgedmf.jpg' (237 KB)
Download 'ridgedmf2.jpg' (263 KB)
Preview of image 'ridgedmf.jpg'
Preview of image 'ridgedmf2.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is an awesome work you have produced there! I truly like it! And
moreover, I might be able to use your waves for my Abyss images.
Are you going to publish your scene code? I would be very happy!
Greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Already have, it's in p.b.s-f, that's an older version of the scene but the
water's the same.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focus com> wrote in message
news:455b1f4b$1@news.povray.org...
> It is an awesome work you have produced there! I truly like it! And
> moreover, I might be able to use your waves for my Abyss images.
>
> Are you going to publish your scene code? I would be very happy!
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sven
>
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
They are both good and the sea state more in keeping with the visibility.
That’s what disturbed me before. If the sea had just sunk the ship then you
would not have been able to see anything except waves and spray. Now it’s
the aftermath of a storm, excellent!
Stephen
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...
This project is intriguing. The water is truly superb, incredibly lifelike.
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. The life-ring looks cool. I think the steeper camera
angle on the last image works better than the toward-horizon shot. My only
real concern is the foam - it's not really right, and only makes the water
look solid, almost crusty! :-) I'd like to see what the water looks like
without any foam; a heavy swell, but not too windy. I think it'd look more
realistic.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
How easily can you animate it? There's probably a good-paying job out
there for you if you can.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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! :)
--
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
I don’t agree. Water clears quite quickly after a storm especially if it is
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'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> a écrit dans le message de news:
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
movement :-). I’m sorry if I sound nitpicking but it is such good sea it
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
seeing the trawler the image looks different. That’s perception for you!
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.
Peter said, “Oh! Is it? Well you could have fooled me.”
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
George Pantazopoulos wrote:
> 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
Completely different beast. There's a world of difference between
animating a blob and animating an isosurface.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Still, the proportions are not entirely correct. The life ring is still too
large by about 50 percent I think at most. Probably a bit less.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:455f2ac9$1@news.povray.org...
> Still, the proportions are not entirely correct. The life ring is still
> too large by about 50 percent I think at most. Probably a bit less.
Yeah, but I'm putting that down to artistic license :) I like the size of
the ring vs the waves, and I don't want the boat to dominate the image.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another version for anyone still reading this thread. It's not different
enough to warrant a full post.
I've tweaked the ship position, camera (it was spherical, it's not now),
water transparency, and better anti-aliasing (rendered at 1600x1200 and
shrunked).
I'm still not happy, I think this camera view just looks too samey, I'm
gonna go back to the view with the sky and improve that maybe...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:455b17c1@news.povray.org...
>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
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ridgedmf.jpg' (217 KB)
Preview of image 'ridgedmf.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:14:40 -0000, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>
>I'm still not happy, I think this camera view just looks too samey, I'm
>gonna go back to the view with the sky and improve that maybe...
Still watching it with interest.
The camera view is "samey" but there's nothing wrong with that. Someone said
that the lifebelt was too big and I agree. IMO It should be scaled down or moved
nearer the foreground with ropes attached. And some flotsam would not go amiss.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: water again (did I say final? lol)
Date: 20 Nov 2006 03:00:05
Message: <45616085@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht
news:455fb00b@news.povray.org...
> Another version for anyone still reading this thread. It's not different
> enough to warrant a full post.
>
> I've tweaked the ship position, camera (it was spherical, it's not now),
> water transparency, and better anti-aliasing (rendered at 1600x1200 and
> shrunked).
>
> I'm still not happy, I think this camera view just looks too samey, I'm
> gonna go back to the view with the sky and improve that maybe...
>
In any case, it remains an awesome image.
I shall come up soon with an image showing your sea and an ancient ship
struggling through the waves. Patience needed for render time....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:45616085@news.povray.org...
> In any case, it remains an awesome image.
> I shall come up soon with an image showing your sea and an ancient ship
> struggling through the waves. Patience needed for render time....
Turn off the media effects near the end of my scene file to make it go
faster :-D
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
> news:45616085@news.povray.org...
> > In any case, it remains an awesome image.
> > I shall come up soon with an image showing your sea and an ancient ship
> > struggling through the waves. Patience needed for render time....
>
> Turn off the media effects near the end of my scene file to make it go
> faster :-D
But media is fun :-D
If you've got more than one CPU, check out MegaPOV XRS:
http://www.gammaburst.net/xrs
I can help you with the setup if you'd like.
Regards,
George
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
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
The second image is stunning. Love that down-angle view. It concentrates
the viewer's attention on *just* the right elements. No sky needed. But
from the point-of-view of the IRTC topic, I suppose the sky and clouds do
add more "complexity."
That's going to be a difficult decision, as to which kind of
image is more appropriate. I do think there is enough visual interest in
that second image to get the idea of complexity across. And besides that,
it just looks COOL! Perhaps a fourth object or element in the
scene--besides the waves, the life preserver and the ship--may add a little
extra drama to it. Bird? Bubbles? Some kind of personal belonging of one
of the hapless passengers, floating on the surface?
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:web.45640926e4e3b873c9aaf65e0@news.povray.org...
> The second image is stunning. Love that down-angle view. It concentrates
> the viewer's attention on *just* the right elements. No sky needed. But
> from the point-of-view of the IRTC topic, I suppose the sky and clouds do
> add more "complexity."
No, having thought about it for a while I definitely prefer the angle with
sky, not because of the sky or fog, but because you can see the shape of the
waves better. The overhead view tends to flatten out the waves so you get
less impression of the awesome 3D wave shapes :)
Whatever view I use it's going to be all about the water, so maybe I just
need a simpler sky that doesn't detract from the foreground.
Although I do like the complex clouds idea... mmm... I wonder how big I can
make my render time...
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
