 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Changed the sky to something a bit more realistic (The previous one was my
poor attempt at a sunrise)
Changed the camera angle slightly
Increased the amount of surface mist.
Comments?
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'LadyOfTheLake.jpg' (104 KB)
Preview of image 'LadyOfTheLake.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 45c347a9@news.povray.org...
> Comments?
Quite nice! The background is just a little too grainy because of focal blur
quality...
But... Shouldn't we see the end of the snorkel emerging? :-)
Xavier
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Changed the sky to something a bit more realistic (The previous one was my
> poor attempt at a sunrise)
>
> Changed the camera angle slightly
>
> Increased the amount of surface mist.
>
> Comments?
I like this better, particularly the moon and the mist. I like the sky, on
my work’s monitor it looks subtly stratified at the top, nice.
How does your Lady always catch the sword by the handle?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
'Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system
of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the
masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony...'
Er, very nice! I'm not sure if the focal blur looks right for this type of
scene, although perhaps that's just because I want to see more of the
background :-). The foreground looks great though, especially the turbulent
fog.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:web.45c353e8c96678e2731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> 'Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system
> of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the
> masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony...'
Lol. Monty Python I presume.
As I mentioned in the previous thread, my inspiration for this came from the
D&D game I play in.
> Er, very nice! I'm not sure if the focal blur looks right for this type of
> scene, although perhaps that's just because I want to see more of the
> background :-).
Small secret... there's not much in the background to see. *g*
I don't often use focal blur, but I like it here.
> The foreground looks great though, especially the turbulent
> fog.
Thanks
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
news:web.45c3535fc96678e2f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> I like this better, particularly the moon and the mist. I like the sky, on
> my work's monitor it looks subtly stratified at the top, nice.
Thanks. I'm not sure why the banding is there. The sky is a solid colour and
2 ground fogs with very high distance
> How does your Lady always catch the sword by the handle?
Magic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xavier M." <NOS### [at] freefr> wrote in message
news:45c34dc7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Quite nice! The background is just a little too grainy because of focal
blur
> quality...
Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
aperture 0.09
blur_samples 150
focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
confidence 0.95
variance 1/256
> But... Shouldn't we see the end of the snorkel emerging? :-)
Closed-circuit. *g*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:web.45c3535fc96678e2f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I like this better, particularly the moon and the mist. I like the sky, on
> > my work's monitor it looks subtly stratified at the top, nice.
>
> Thanks. I'm not sure why the banding is there. The sky is a solid colour and
> 2 ground fogs with very high distance
Can you see it in the original? Looks good to me.
> > How does your Lady always catch the sword by the handle?
>
> Magic.
Come on! I suppose your next subject will be the tooth fairy? :-)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Lol. Monty Python I presume.
Oui. Mønti Pythøn ik den Hølie Gräilen, of course.
> > Er, very nice! I'm not sure if the focal blur looks right for this type of
> > scene, although perhaps that's just because I want to see more of the
> > background :-).
> Small secret... there's not much in the background to see. *g*
I suspected that might be the case. Actually, I've looked at it a bit more
and I've changed my mind. I think the blur works well, by bringing all
attention firmly to the sword and hand, the only part of the image in
proper focus. Subtle effect, well contrived.
:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 45c356cb@news.povray.org...
> Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
> blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
>
> aperture 0.09
> blur_samples 150
> focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
> confidence 0.95
> variance 1/256
Sorry, I am not experienced with focal blur, too... After reading and trying
to understand the documentation, well, I think I would try to lower the
variance. Be prepared for a slower rendering!
Xavier
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:20:53 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com>
wrote:
Nice image!
>Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
>blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
>
>aperture 0.09
>blur_samples 150
>focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
>confidence 0.95
>variance 1/256
I'd suggest reducing the aperture a bit to increase the depth of field. The
background looks too blurry to me. You should be able to find a happy medium where
the background is out of focus enough
to hide the lack of details that you have mentioned, but a little sharper that it is
now. It's really all up to your artistic preferences, though. :-) You can increase
the blur samples to reduce
the graininess.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Changed the sky to something a bit more realistic (The previous one was my
> poor attempt at a sunrise)
>
> Changed the camera angle slightly
>
> Increased the amount of surface mist.
>
> Comments?
Looks great. It's probably just this LCD I'm viewing it on, but my only
problem with it is the transition from the hills to the sky. It looks a
bit like someone was taking a long exposure photo and bumped the camera
halfway through. I think that one edge needs more blur, or maybe turn down
the contrast just a bit.
The trees go very nicely into the fog and the hills, but the contrast is
lower there... I'm not quite sure how to suggest a fix either, OTOH as I
said at the start, it might not even be a real problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jaime Vives Piqueres
Subject: Re: Lady of the Lake, version 2 (100kbu)
Date: 2 Feb 2007 16:14:57
Message: <45c3a9d1$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> Focal blur settings are as follows. I'm not very experienced with focul
> blur. Any settings you'd suggest changing?
IIRC, "variance 0" gives usually less grain, but it's very slow with
so many samples.
Great image, BTW!
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Lady of the Lake, version 2 (100kbu)
Date: 3 Feb 2007 03:18:49
Message: <45c44569@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, I like this version better!
The sky is beautiful. The banding Stephen mentioned is probably due to (one
of) the fog(s) in the distance. Just a guess. I seem to have experienced
something similar in the past.
I am not a very big fan of focal blur, but here it is very effective indeed.
Well done!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> aperture 0.09
> blur_samples 150
> focal_point <13,-1.65,-2>
> confidence 0.95
> variance 1/256
I think your variance is good, but you should increase the confidence. Right
now, for each pixel you're 95% sure that it's within 1/256 of the color it
should be. You want to be much more sure than that. You may also have to
increase the blur_samples in order to achieve the confidence you specify.
And if all else fails, just set confidence 1 varience 0 and it will do the
specified number of blur_samples for every pixel.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:28:16 EST, "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
>> news:web.45c3535fc96678e2f1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> > I like this better, particularly the moon and the mist. I like the sky, on
>> > my work's monitor it looks subtly stratified at the top, nice.
>>
>> Thanks. I'm not sure why the banding is there. The sky is a solid colour and
>> 2 ground fogs with very high distance
>
>Can you see it in the original? Looks good to me.
>
Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that would
make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
I much prefer the new camera position.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 01:21:05 -0800, "Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
>And if all else fails, just set confidence 1 varience 0 and it will do the
>specified number of blur_samples for every pixel.
Actually, a confidence value of 1 is invalid. POV-Ray will display a warning message
and default to
a confidence value of 0.9, at least in version 3.6. Reference section "3.3.1.3 Focal
Blur" in the
manual.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:nrp8s2huclp1a4b0jk6brg6tqhljslofk3@4ax.com...
> Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that
would
> make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
I can see a bit on the original image, but I have to zoom in massivly to see
it.
> I much prefer the new camera position.
Thanks. Me too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:10:43 +0200, "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot
com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
>news:nrp8s2huclp1a4b0jk6brg6tqhljslofk3@4ax.com...
>
>> Looking at the image at home on my own monitor I don't see anything that
>would
>> make me comment on banding. Cheap work's monitor :-(
>
>I can see a bit on the original image, but I have to zoom in massivly to see
>it.
>
At home I saw it in psp by "find all edges" then "enhance edges more". Bah!
Cheap monitors.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
