 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've never made a serious attempt on doing an outdoor scene so here is
my first try.
I'm no botanist but I did some research on what kind of trees could have
grown together in a mixed leaf forest on European hills during the 18th
century so we have here 'Sycamore Maple', 'European Beech', 'English
Oak', 'Red Oak' and 'Horse Chestnut'. Some of them where already in the
standard XFrog library and I did create the missing ones with XFrog -
which is in fact quite easy when you have some good reference photos.
All the leaves where 'painted' in autumn colors within Photoshop.
There are also a few thousand dead leaves on the ground, not just
randomly distributed but with respect to the corresponding tree position
but sadly this is almost not visible due all the fog, shadows, ferns and
shrubs.
As almost every POVer I did create my own grass macro.
As a side note: my first quite naive version of using single grass
blades and distributing them over the landscape didn't work out because
this did quickly require more than 2GB of memory. I guess because each
blade-mesh itself is instantiated but still requires its own
transformation to be be stored. So I made a macro for creating an
irregular grass patch and distributed those patches - and memory usage
dropped to 100MB for the same amount of blades.
The ruin is made of spline based isosurfaces and the gravestones are
also isosurfaces. Both made with the help of Christoph Hormann's
excellent IsoCSG includes.
I'm currently quite unhappy with the distribution of the shrubs and
bushes. I'll have to find some better 'rules' to pseudo-random
distribute them.
And the overall look of the woods is too clean, what I have in mind is
an ancient forest - so there is still a lot of research and work to do.
anyway, comments and recommendations are very welcome, especially since
I spend almost my entire live within cities...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'blueflower.jpg' (288 KB)
Preview of image 'blueflower.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That grass is beautiful, really believable. I've never seen such good clumpy cg
grass before. I look forward to further instalments...
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive escribió:
> I've never made a serious attempt on doing an outdoor scene so here is my
> first try.
Looking very good so far... specially the grass. The isosurfaces work is
also very good, but the ruins seems too uniform, as missing some hint at the
building stones/bricks. The only other thing that pops out clearly as CG is
the trunk textures of the trees next to the ruins. But overall, this is very
promising!
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <"ive### [at] lilysoft org"> schreef in bericht
news:49f18663@news.povray.org...
> I've never made a serious attempt on doing an outdoor scene so here is
> my first try.
>
For a first try, this is really excellent. The grass in particular is one
of the best I have seen.
Personally, I find the tree trunks too smooth and would like to see a bit of
rough bark. Also, the two dead trees, on both sides of the ruin, are a bit
overdone, imo. Only one dead tree should be much more natural looking in
this context. I would choose the right one, and replace the left one by a
major bush.
Like Jaime, I would like to see some stone structure in the wall.
The raven on the cross is very appropriate, although maybe a bit of a
cliché, but keep it! It just fits the bill well.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a question: Why is it called "The Blue Flower"? Is there some
reference that I am missing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Techically stunning, especially the lush grass matted with debris, the
accuracy of the tree species, even the sky.
Thematically I feel like the thought is there, the elements are orbiting
around but haven't come together quite yet. Compositionally, the
symmetry, with the ruin right in the center, perhaps calls for something
more pared down and stark, or else the lushness wants for less symmetry?
The ruin, feels not quite right, something so destroyed, yet still
maintaining crucial details of wrought iron and archway.
That it is not overgrown in such a lush setting, and the flanking dead
trees are the tipoff to what you are aiming to say off course, but I
just don't quite feel that it has jelled into a total statement.
The strange coincedence of events around the cross with raven, for
instance, leaving the tree behind seem to float.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
> I've never made a serious attempt on doing an outdoor scene so here is
> my first try.
It looks really good! Others have already mentioned the stonework not having
individual pieces, but I do have one other nitpick. Without really knowing
anything concrete about the size and type of building, it still seems odd that
the hills and trees are so close in front of or behind the remaining wall. I
also think the fog should probably be scattering media, because it seems to
have a hazy sort of glow in the shadowed areas.
Anyway, you've done a very good job in my opinion.
-Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive nous illumina en ce 2009-04-24 05:28 -->
> I've never made a serious attempt on doing an outdoor scene so here is
> my first try.
>
> I'm no botanist but I did some research on what kind of trees could have
> grown together in a mixed leaf forest on European hills during the 18th
> century so we have here 'Sycamore Maple', 'European Beech', 'English
> Oak', 'Red Oak' and 'Horse Chestnut'. Some of them where already in the
> standard XFrog library and I did create the missing ones with XFrog -
> which is in fact quite easy when you have some good reference photos.
> All the leaves where 'painted' in autumn colors within Photoshop.
>
> There are also a few thousand dead leaves on the ground, not just
> randomly distributed but with respect to the corresponding tree position
> but sadly this is almost not visible due all the fog, shadows, ferns and
> shrubs.
>
> As almost every POVer I did create my own grass macro.
> As a side note: my first quite naive version of using single grass
> blades and distributing them over the landscape didn't work out because
> this did quickly require more than 2GB of memory. I guess because each
> blade-mesh itself is instantiated but still requires its own
> transformation to be be stored. So I made a macro for creating an
> irregular grass patch and distributed those patches - and memory usage
> dropped to 100MB for the same amount of blades.
>
> The ruin is made of spline based isosurfaces and the gravestones are
> also isosurfaces. Both made with the help of Christoph Hormann's
> excellent IsoCSG includes.
>
> I'm currently quite unhappy with the distribution of the shrubs and
> bushes. I'll have to find some better 'rules' to pseudo-random
> distribute them.
> And the overall look of the woods is too clean, what I have in mind is
> an ancient forest - so there is still a lot of research and work to do.
>
> anyway, comments and recommendations are very welcome, especially since
> I spend almost my entire live within cities...
>
> -Ive
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Very good grass!
I agree with you about the place been to clean.
Let see... An old forest should have dead branches, and some boulders and
smaller rocks. Some more bushes and undergrowth would also seem appropriate.
The two bare trees don't need to be dead trees, just trees that loose ther
leaves faster. But they look to symetrical to the ruin. just displacing one a
bit should do the job.
I'd also slightly reorient the camera somewhat to the left.
As ther is a ruin, there shold also be some broken stone blocks, and some almost
intact but partialy buried.
Tree bark tend to get rougher near the base of the tree, but some trees tend to
keep some smoothness for a very long time. Maples and oaks tend to have very
rough bark, with vertical grooves that can get to be an inch deep and sometimes
more.
Where is the blue flower?
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you look at waterfalls, dust,
rain, snow, etc, and think: "If only I had a fractalized, vector based
particle-system modeler with collision detection!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Reactor" <rea### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Without really knowing
> anything concrete about the size and type of building, it still seems odd that
> the hills and trees are so close in front of or behind the remaining wall.
That's actually quite common where I live.
One of my junior high classrooms used the bedrock of the abutting hill as one of
its walls!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:28:19 +0200, Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
>anyway, comments and recommendations are very welcome, especially since
>I spend almost my entire live within cities...
Nice but you can't just say "As almost every POVer I did create my own grass
macro." and leave it like that ;)
The mist looks fine to me and not over done
Is the title "The Blue Flower" a symbolic reference to romanticism? If so it
fits.
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Techically stunning, especially the lush grass matted with debris, the
> accuracy of the tree species, even the sky.
> Thematically I feel like the thought is there, the elements are orbiting
> around but haven't come together quite yet.
Well put, thats exactly how I feel about it too.
> Compositionally, the
> symmetry, with the ruin right in the center, perhaps calls for something
> more pared down and stark, or else the lushness wants for less symmetry?
Yes, I'm aware of that and I think my idea by using a more 'Classical'
(meant as opposed to 'Romantic') layout was to add an ironic touch
already to the composition. But I'm definitely not so sure anymore where
and how far this ironic distance should go.
> The ruin, feels not quite right, something so destroyed, yet still
> maintaining crucial details of wrought iron and archway.
> That it is not overgrown in such a lush setting, and the flanking dead
> trees are the tipoff to what you are aiming to say off course, but I
> just don't quite feel that it has jelled into a total statement.
In fact the 'design' of the ruin is stolen from Caspar David Friedrich
who used the building within several paintings - and by sometimes
'putting' the ruin in total different environments. Thats quite usual
for artists (not only painters) of the Romanticism as they where not
interested Realism but in an idealized picture of nature and the middle
ages.
> The strange coincedence of events around the cross with raven, for
> instance, leaving the tree behind seem to float.
Yes, the raven. Edgar Allen Poe - as I do read him - meant his well
known novels and poems quite ironic or even as a parody to the 'German
Gothic Art' that was quite en vogue during the 19th century in America.
Poe's other writings, letters and art criticism do make it quite clear
that he was in fact a child of the 'Age of Enlightenment'.
Thanks a lot for your input Jim, it forced me to actually think again
about my own intentions because I got quite sidetracked by purely
technical aspects.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mr. Art wrote:
> Just a question: Why is it called "The Blue Flower"? Is there some
> reference that I am missing?
There is no blue flower in the picture but there is a reminiscence to
the "Blue Flower" seen as a symbolic reference to Romanticism -
including lyric, music and painting.
Novalis, a German 18th century writer, used the "Blaue Blume" as
metaphor for search for the unreachable, desire and unfulfilled love.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> For a first try, this is really excellent. The grass in particular is one
> of the best I have seen.
>
Thank you, Thomas.
> Personally, I find the tree trunks too smooth and would like to see a bit of
> rough bark. Also, the two dead trees, on both sides of the ruin, are a bit
> overdone, imo. Only one dead tree should be much more natural looking in
> this context. I would choose the right one, and replace the left one by a
> major bush.
>
> Like Jaime, I would like to see some stone structure in the wall.
>
Will work on those.
> The raven on the cross is very appropriate, although maybe a bit of a
> cliché, but keep it! It just fits the bill well.
>
It *is* a cliché and sometimes I love it to overdo those, could be seen
is an ironic touch as the whole theme is a cliché. Anyway I will give it
some more thought as I'm still not so sure about the direction to go...
...see my reply to Jim for more.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Is the title "The Blue Flower" a symbolic reference to romanticism? If so it
> fits.
> Quoth the raven, "Nevermore".
Yes, and thank you Stephen, I was already thinking that nobody
recognizes it - and would have made the title quite senseless.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> good, but the ruins seems too uniform, as missing some hint at the
> building stones/bricks. The only other thing that pops out clearly as CG is
> the trunk textures of the trees next to the ruins. But overall, this is
> very promising!
>
Thank you Jaime, you are absolutely right and I will see what I can do
about the bark and the stones.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> That grass is beautiful, really believable. I've never seen such good clumpy cg
> grass before. I look forward to further instalments...
>
Thank you Bill, and I look forward too 'cause I have currently no idea
about the direction it will go... ;)
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
>
> Let see... An old forest should have dead branches, and some boulders
> and smaller rocks. Some more bushes and undergrowth would also seem
> appropriate.
> The two bare trees don't need to be dead trees, just trees that loose
> ther leaves faster. But they look to symetrical to the ruin. just
> displacing one a bit should do the job.
> I'd also slightly reorient the camera somewhat to the left.
> As ther is a ruin, there shold also be some broken stone blocks, and
> some almost intact but partialy buried.
> Tree bark tend to get rougher near the base of the tree, but some trees
> tend to keep some smoothness for a very long time. Maples and oaks tend
> to have very rough bark, with vertical grooves that can get to be an
> inch deep and sometimes more.
>
Thank you Allen for all the useful suggestions, I'll keep them in mind.
> Where is the blue flower?
;) ...see my replies to Stephen, Jim and 'Mr Art'.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reactor wrote:
> It looks really good!
Thank you.
> Others have already mentioned the stonework not having
> individual pieces, but I do have one other nitpick. Without really knowing
> anything concrete about the size and type of building, it still seems odd that
> the hills and trees are so close in front of or behind the remaining wall.
You might be right, but in fact I'm not so much interested in 'Realism'
(and I do not mean photo-realistic rendering here) but more in
'Romanticism'. You may want to read my reply to Jim for more about that.
> I also think the fog should probably be scattering media, because it seems to
> have a hazy sort of glow in the shadowed areas.
>
Yes. For a final render I will definitely use scattering media and also
radiosity (currently there is just a fill light at the camera position
to fake some ambient light). Some test renderings have already shown
that this will look really good - but also will be incredible slow.
So before actually using media and radiosity I want to make sure that
everything else is 'right'.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:11:15 +0200, Ive <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> wrote:
>
>Yes, I'm aware of that and I think my idea by using a more 'Classical'
>(meant as opposed to 'Romantic') layout was to add an ironic touch
>already to the composition. But I'm definitely not so sure anymore where
>and how far this ironic distance should go.
>
>
I'll expect to see a few Greco-Roman gods and Heroes in the foreground, then.
Not to mention chubby nudes :)
>
>> The strange coincedence of events around the cross with raven, for
>> instance, leaving the tree behind seem to float.
>
>Yes, the raven. Edgar Allen Poe - as I do read him - meant his well
>known novels and poems quite ironic or even as a parody to the 'German
>Gothic Art' that was quite en vogue during the 19th century in America.
>Poe's other writings, letters and art criticism do make it quite clear
>that he was in fact a child of the 'Age of Enlightenment'.
>
I've got a mental picture of the sound picture from Waber's "Der Freischütz"
This would make a good backdrop only it is too good :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Really great!!!
But anybody who don't know your references will ask: "Where is the blue
flower?"
Xavier
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah! I didn't know this. Thanks.
Ive wrote:
> Mr. Art wrote:
>> Just a question: Why is it called "The Blue Flower"? Is there some
>> reference that I am missing?
>
> There is no blue flower in the picture but there is a reminiscence to
> the "Blue Flower" seen as a symbolic reference to Romanticism -
> including lyric, music and painting.
> Novalis, a German 18th century writer, used the "Blaue Blume" as
> metaphor for search for the unreachable, desire and unfulfilled love.
>
> -Ive
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The meadow close-by looks very realistic. But I have some slight problem
with the fog, not sure what exactly. Would a ground fog be better..?
But definitively you need to add crusty details to the stems of the trees,
they look way too smooth! And the horizon needs distant, small trees, as
well. Or something.
What about the one or another mushroom on the meadow?
Have some climbing plants grow on a part of the ruin, maybe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive, can you send me the source code for the grass and maybe, too, for the
leafs in the grass? And for the trees? Wow, that would be nice!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Thematically I feel like the thought is there, the elements are orbiting
> around but haven't come together quite yet. Compositionally, the
> symmetry, with the ruin right in the center, perhaps calls for something
> more pared down and stark, or else the lushness wants for less symmetry?
> The strange coincedence of events around the cross with raven, for
> instance, leaving the tree behind seem to float.
I agree with Jim that this is a great start, but having the ruins dead-center
and flanked by the dead trees is a bit too symetrically boring. Moving the
camera (and therefore the ruins) off to one side would help the composition
greatly and would remove the unfortunate tangent of headstone->raven->dead
tree. Leading the eye compositionally is something that can really make or
break a piece.
Also, as others mentioned, more roughness to the dead tree and I'd like to see
some stone or brick work peering through the "stucco."
-Rob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
