You know Tek, that's much better. :o)

  After looking at this image, I was thinking about what I would do with it, 
and came to the conclusion that I would definately cover those floating 
bits. The one to the far right would be a soaring eagle - you already have 
the perfect shape there. And the one near the centre, I'd just cover with 
cloud. Also, the pointy bit to the left, would have the eagle's mate sitting 
there awaiting his return with possibly a nest nearby, (as that part looks 
quite close to me, and the rest looks far away).

   Nice potential in this image for various themes. (Hang glider also comes 
to mind low down in that valley).

      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tek wrote:
> tweaked!
> 
> Improved rock & grass texture so the middle distance looks less flat and 
> boring, although perhaps now too dark. And way better clouds, though still 
> some striped artefacts (despite intervals=4).
> 
	You should lower the interval back to 1 and increase the samples
instead. With the right settings, you should get something that
looks better *and* renders faster...

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFbJqgd0kWM4JG3k8RAs2gAJ9yl+sHgnqYw9JJ6qSMu4aSkddPcwCfe9LR
E/l9ZPwWBu/WmiaYW39gc2c=
=aeXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

Actually when I said "intervals" I was mistaken, it was the samples I 
increased. They render faster than intervals but even with this setting, 
which still has some artefacts, it takes about 10 times longer than the rest 
of the scene :-(

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com


news:456c9a86$1@news.povray.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tek wrote:
>> tweaked!
>>
>> Improved rock & grass texture so the middle distance looks less flat and
>> boring, although perhaps now too dark. And way better clouds, though 
>> still
>> some striped artefacts (despite intervals=4).
>>
> You should lower the interval back to 1 and increase the samples
> instead. With the right settings, you should get something that
> looks better *and* renders faster...
>
> Jerome
> - --
> +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
> |    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
> |    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
> +---------------------------------+------------------------------+
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFbJqgd0kWM4JG3k8RAs2gAJ9yl+sHgnqYw9JJ6qSMu4aSkddPcwCfe9LR
> E/l9ZPwWBu/WmiaYW39gc2c=
> =aeXg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

Nope, no df3s here, it's a granite pattern with a lot of turbulence. The 
bands are parallel to the bounding shape, because in the distance each ray 
passes through a much longer range of clouds but uses the same number of 
samples (why doesn't pov adjust the min samples based on the distance it's 
sampling over?!), so you tend to get artefacts relating to large changes in 
depth of the bounding shape, which in this case means horizontal lines 
(effectively contours of depth of the bounding shape). And, before you say 
it, the bounding shape has to be like that because otherwise the clouds 
occupy such a small region of space that they mostly vanish when I use other 
bounding shapes, because no rays intersect with them.

Annoyingly media method 3's "anti-aliasing" seems blind to this artefact, so 
the only thing that fixes it is more samples => proportionally more render 
time :(

This one has 4 times as many samples and the artefacts are better, but still 
visible. Based on that I'd expect a 1500x1000 render without artefacts to 
take more than 24hrs! aaargh! So I'm not going to bother :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"David El Tom" <dav### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message 
news:456bf263$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek schrieb:
>> I put the camera somewhere more interesting, and tweaked the lighting and
>> atmosphere a bit. Though this much higher-res image shows up some errors 
>> in
>> the clouds. Also this view shows some obvious levitating rocks, and I'm 
>> not
>> so fond of the boring grey rock texture...
>>
>> Anyway, still looks pretty dramatic so I thought I'd show it :)
>>
>> I'm probably going to use it as a backdrop for some 2D stuff in 
>> photoshop,
>> with some figures on the overhang on the left.
>>
> nice surreal appeal ...
>
> it looks like your using media clouds based on df3 data (banding/cell
> strukture). Instead of increasing the resolution of the df3 data you may
> add some turbulence *after* importing the density file. Will slow down
> the render process slightly but you get rid of the cell strukture, which
> is an inherent problem of density files.
>
> ... dave

Post a reply to this message

And, for anyone who wants to laugh at how much worse my 2D skills are than 
my povray skills, here's a version I've painted all over using Corel Painter 
IX.5 and Photoshop: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43810502/

Criticism appreciated, particularly from anyone who's good with a paint 
brush. Though "stick to what you're good at" will not be appreciated! I'm 
trying to branch out! :)
-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message 
news:456aa77a@news.povray.org...
>I put the camera somewhere more interesting, and tweaked the lighting and 
>atmosphere a bit. Though this much higher-res image shows up some errors in 
>the clouds. Also this view shows some obvious levitating rocks, and I'm not 
>so fond of the boring grey rock texture...
>
> Anyway, still looks pretty dramatic so I thought I'd show it :)
>
> I'm probably going to use it as a backdrop for some 2D stuff in photoshop, 
> with some figures on the overhang on the left.
> -- 
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Tek nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 28/11/2006 19:35:
> Actually when I said "intervals" I was mistaken, it was the samples I 
> increased. They render faster than intervals but even with this setting, 
> which still has some artefacts, it takes about 10 times longer than the rest 
> of the scene :-(

samples 4 is prety low. You may need something larger, like 50 or more. The 
rendering time increase less than linearly when you increase the  samples count.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are really good, you 
will get out of it.

Post a reply to this message

I have samples 40, which is 4 times the default, which is where I got 4 from 
in my original message :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message 
news:456cea1a$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 28/11/2006 19:35:
>> Actually when I said "intervals" I was mistaken, it was the samples I 
>> increased. They render faster than intervals but even with this setting, 
>> which still has some artefacts, it takes about 10 times longer than the 
>> rest of the scene :-(
>
> samples 4 is prety low. You may need something larger, like 50 or more. 
> The rendering time increase less than linearly when you increase the 
> samples count.
>
> -- 
> Alain
> -------------------------------------------------
> If you are good, you will be assigned all the work. If you are really 
> good, you will get out of it.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> schreef in bericht 
news:456cd78f$1@news.povray.org...
> And, for anyone who wants to laugh at how much worse my 2D skills are than 
> my povray skills, here's a version I've painted all over using Corel 
> Painter IX.5 and Photoshop: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/43810502/
>
> Criticism appreciated, particularly from anyone who's good with a paint 
> brush. Though "stick to what you're good at" will not be appreciated! I'm 
> trying to branch out! :)
> -- 

Stick to....
Sorry. I forgot.
The usefulness of this exercise is that it gives a fair idea about 
proportions in the landscape. I would suggest even smaller figures in fact 
on the overhang! The eagle should be farther away.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> I have samples 40, which is 4 times the default, which is where I got 4 from 
> in my original message :)
> 
	Then you should try to raise the aa_level (default is 4) and lower
the samples back. Start at samples 20 aa_level 6 for example...

		Jerome
-- 
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tek wrote:
> (why doesn't pov adjust the min samples based on the distance it's 
> sampling over?!), 
	Megapov 0.7 could do it, but I never had the time to port it to
more recent versions...

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFbdzMd0kWM4JG3k8RAop+AJ9FSzupaZiq763Ihgt8JQuxJAj7OQCdGWZn
SyyT3py/8IBP0MYcq3cIlJM=
=DXCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message