"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message 
news:45b3eeb1$1@news.povray.org...
>> I like it, except that the red bricks are way too bright.  They really
>> stand out against all the other colors.
>
>
> I agree. You have interesting architecture in the back, but the floor is 
> too
> loud to let you notice it.

yeah ... I had a more muted color scheme that I liked better .... changing 
it back!

>
> Also, you need some light on the viewer's side of the archway. Maybe a 
> soft
> spotlight falling over the walls would be good. I can tell that you want 
> the
> archway to be a frame, but it's so dark that it looks flat and fake 
> compared
> to the rest.

yep ... I'd agree with that .... I've since tried and area light that I 
moved way back
so that it shows on the wall (it has two hurricance lamps in small alcoves 
on each side of the doorway. It looks MUCH better as the light filters down 
through the hex shaped windows in the top of the 2nd level of the room.

> Maybe you could move the camera closer to the door and increase the camera
> angle, to let us see more of the outside? The roof and the sky beyond it,
> for instance, as well as whatever's on the left and right. You could also
> move the camera down some and have it look up, so we see less of the floor
> and more of the sky. I feel like there's something interesting out there,
> but I can't see it.
>

I like the view looking through the doorway but the camera angle (up) is a 
bit tricky .... I wanted to use the gid lines in the courtyard tiles to pull 
the viewer into the scene .... some excellent feedback ..... thanks!

> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>
BTW: How 'bout them Colts (another shameless plug ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> This started out as a barracks in some off world scene but ended up looking
> a bit more
> terrestrial ..... kind of like tudor meets bajoran.
>
>
>
> Jim

It looks interesting. I think those sculptural cylindrical things would make
good bishops in a chess set. As others have said, the floor distracts a bit
from the rest of the image. I like the bumpy hexagonal windows.

-Stefan

Post a reply to this message

A much improved version if I do say so .....

In order to get a better view it took a combination of moving the camera 
back and pushing the outside building out WAY farther in the "Z" axis. It 
took a bit to get the camera angle so the image didn't have a pinchusioned 
look to it. The close up view of the wall and the oil lamps has an area 
light the size of and almost right up against the ceiling. I like this tile 
color scheme MUCH better than the previous version ....

Thanks everyone who offered comments on previous version .... I was 
suffering from POV version of writters block!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Courtyard.jpg' (298 KB)

Preview of image 'Courtyard.jpg'

Very nice!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A much improved version if I do say so .....
>
> In order to get a better view it took a combination of moving the camera
> back and pushing the outside building out WAY farther in the "Z" axis. It
> took a bit to get the camera angle so the image didn't have a pinchusioned
> look to it. The close up view of the wall and the oil lamps has an area
> light the size of and almost right up against the ceiling. I like this tile
> color scheme MUCH better than the previous version ....
>
> Thanks everyone who offered comments on previous version .... I was
> suffering from POV version of writters block!


Great job!  The lamps and texture on the foreground wall are terrific.  Only
two small comments. The texture on the far wall (looks like it's the same
texture as the foreground) is too uniform at that distance.  It almost looks
like new stucco, so maybe some larger patterned texture would help.  Also,
the roof on the tower is very smooth when outlined against the sky (image
mapped cone?)  If you had a few tree branches coming out from behind just a
teensy bit it would break up the line to make it less noticeable.

I think a close up of the lamp in its alcove the way it's currently lit
would look awesome!

Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Sobers" <sob### [at] mindspringcom> wrote in message 
news:web.45b9873aa665bdeebb1c02580@news.povray.org...
> Great job!  The lamps and texture on the foreground wall are terrific. 
> Only
> two small comments. The texture on the far wall (looks like it's the same
> texture as the foreground) is too uniform at that distance.  It almost 
> looks
> like new stucco, so maybe some larger patterned texture would help.

Thanks .... I like the lamps and inside texture as well. I'm not sure what 
to do about the outside texture looking so small at that distance. It 
shouldn't be too difficult to rescale the outside texture and retain the 
inside like it is. If memory serves me I believe I didn't texture the shapes 
I used to do the cutouts.

> Also, the roof on the tower is very smooth when outlined against the sky 
> (image
> mapped cone?)  If you had a few tree branches coming out from behind just 
> a
> teensy bit it would break up the line to make it less noticeable.
>
yes the shake roof is image_map on a HEX shaped cone. I tried to make it 
look less smooth but using the same image_map as a normal_map with large 
bump_size but wasn't able to pull it off ..... maybe a slight rotation in 
the y-axis might help.
BTW the sky is also image_map .... it's a photograph I took this last fall 
in my backyard.

> I think a close up of the lamp in its alcove the way it's currently lit
> would look awesome!

I was thinking of doing a separate render of just that .....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A much improved version if I do say so .....
>
> In order to get a better view it took a combination of moving the camera
> back and pushing the outside building out WAY farther in the "Z" axis. It
> took a bit to get the camera angle so the image didn't have a pinchusioned
> look to it. The close up view of the wall and the oil lamps has an area
> light the size of and almost right up against the ceiling. I like this tile
> color scheme MUCH better than the previous version ....
>
> Thanks everyone who offered comments on previous version .... I was
> suffering from POV version of writters block!

This does look much better than the original, If you are still planning
further improvments I think you should use an area light to soften the
shadows a bit, I like the sky/trees but it is not realistic as the Sun
appears to be setting in the distance but the light is comming from the
left side. However, it would be a shame to lose either the shadows of the
arches or the great looking sky so I would not change this it is just an
observation.

Also it is worth adding a layer of dirt over your wall texture to slightly
darken the texture near the floor again this is if you are aiming for
realism which is not always the purpose.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A much improved version if I do say so .....

I agree.  The red bricks were the main thing, but the courtyard also seems
less claustrophobic now.

Just some comments:

 - As with any scene with prominent shadowed areas, i think this scene would
   benefit greatly from radiosity.

 - I like those copper "bishops."  What happened to them?

 - The sky suggests a sunrise or a sunset, but the sunlight color and the
   shadow lengths suggest otherwise.

 - I also agree with Mike that the tower silhouette is too smooth.

 - The outdoor area light was a good idea, although i think the effect in
   the original was too exaggerated.

   To be realistic, the diameter of the area light should be 2/215 the
   distance to the Sun.  For example:

      #declare Sun_loc = <-2000, 3000, -5000>;
      #declare Sun_d = vlength (Sun_loc) * 2/215;
      light_source
      {  Sun_loc, ...
         area_light Sun_d * x, Sun_d * z, 5, 5 circular orient
         ...
      }

   The effect is subtle, though, so some artistic licence may be called for.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:web.45ba1b93a665bdee85de7b680@news.povray.org...
> - I like those copper "bishops."  What happened to them?

they just seemed out of place ....

> - The sky suggests a sunrise or a sunset, but the sunlight color and the
>   shadow lengths suggest otherwise.
>
i've been looking for another photo to use as image map, as i've not been 
able to come up with skies that I've been happy with. In this case I figured 
heck hollywood uses the "mat painting" technique .... why not in POV .... 
right? anyway I agree the backdrop is wrong my current setup.

the main light color is a tweeked Goldenrod from colors.inc I'm going for 
the "gloaming" look, and the light inside the alcove takes into account that 
some of the outside light makes it through the hex windows up in the tower.
>
> - The outdoor area light was a good idea, although i think the effect in
>   the original was too exaggerated.
>
>   To be realistic, the diameter of the area light should be 2/215 the
>   distance to the Sun.  For example:
>
>      #declare Sun_loc = <-2000, 3000, -5000>;
>      #declare Sun_d = vlength (Sun_loc) * 2/215;
>      light_source
>      {  Sun_loc, ...
>         area_light Sun_d * x, Sun_d * z, 5, 5 circular orient
>         ...
>      }

lighting is the trickiest part so I'm going to play around with your example 
.... thanks

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A much improved version if I do say so .....
>

To get that "in the gloaming" look--a beautiful idea-- I would suggest, as
others have, an area light for the courtyard, to soften the shadows.  But
to make it somewhat of a pastel blue.  On a clear and crisp late afternoon,
the light coming from the overhead sky at sunset transitions from light blue
to a darker blue/purple. Or use TWO area lights, one blue, the other
pinkish/orange (to simulate some overhead clouds reflecting the setting
sun.)

Very nice work.

KW

Post a reply to this message