 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] home com> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> >
> > I would move either the camera or the sun a fraction as there is a lineup of the
> > shadow from the outer circle and a horizontal stone, showing through the gap in
> > the centre. One of those “you couldn’t do it if you tried” things. :)
> >
>
> Point duly noted, I'll move the camera, the sun position is rather tied
> to season and time of day.
>
sun?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht
news:web.4a5f147b730842965fd99d9e0@news.povray.org...
>
> What's the point of being a minor deity if you can't change the position
> of the
> sun?
>
That's the difference between minor and major.... ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Stonehenge - Spring equinox, dawn (wip) (adjusted)
Date: 16 Jul 2009 11:16:19
Message: <4a5f4443$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The rocks on top in the middle seem to be floating. I'd expect a much
smaller gap there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chris B
Subject: Re: Stonehenge - Spring equinox, dawn (wip) (adjusted)
Date: 16 Jul 2009 17:41:29
Message: <4a5f9e89@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> wrote in message
news:4a5f01bf@news.povray.org...
> A few changes.
> 1. Adjustments to isosurfaces
> 2. Changed Lightsys parameters slightly
> 3. Changed ground fog
As TC mentioned, the Stonehenge stones are grey. So the side facing the Sun
could appear Orange, but the bits in the shade should be grey.
I'm intrigued by this theory that one side could have been open and haven't
been able to find any mention of that on the Internet (and I checked the
calendar and it's definitely not April 1st). Do you have any reference for
that?
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Doctor John
Subject: Re: Stonehenge - Spring equinox, dawn (wip) (adjusted)
Date: 17 Jul 2009 06:47:50
Message: <4a6056d6$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris B wrote:
> I'm intrigued by this theory that one side could have been open and
> haven't been able to find any mention of that on the Internet (and I
> checked the calendar and it's definitely not April 1st). Do you have any
> reference for that?
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.
Right now I'm checking for a hardcopy citation but from Wikipedia comes
this:
"The stones were dressed and fashioned with mortise and tenon joints
before 30 were erected as a 33 metres (110 ft) diameter circle of
standing stones, with a ring of 30 lintel stones resting on top.
<snip>
A total of 74 stones would have been needed to complete the circle and,
unless some of the sarsens have since been removed from the site, it
would seem that the ring was left incomplete."
IIRC it was one of the Sheffield team who pointed out the symmetry in
the present opening and the lack of (backfilled or otherwise) holes for
the missing sarsens.
If I rediscover the original citation I'll let you know through p.o-t.
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Doctor John
Subject: Re: Stonehenge - Spring equinox, dawn (wip) (adjusted)
Date: 17 Jul 2009 06:50:51
Message: <4a60578b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
>> A few changes.
>
> Hm... still way too strong ambient on the stones. Or not enough on the ground.
> In any case there's a mismatch there.
>
>
As of today, I've abandoned using Lightsys and am going back to good old
radiosity with a sky_sphere. Present results are looking promising with
a better contrast level
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Stonehenge - Spring equinox, dawn (wip) (adjusted)
Date: 18 Jul 2009 03:10:33
Message: <4a617569$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> schreef in bericht
news:4a6056d6$1@news.povray.org...
> Right now I'm checking for a hardcopy citation but from Wikipedia comes
> this:
> "The stones were dressed and fashioned with mortise and tenon joints
> before 30 were erected as a 33 metres (110 ft) diameter circle of
> standing stones, with a ring of 30 lintel stones resting on top.
> <snip>
> A total of 74 stones would have been needed to complete the circle and,
> unless some of the sarsens have since been removed from the site, it
> would seem that the ring was left incomplete."
>
> IIRC it was one of the Sheffield team who pointed out the symmetry in
> the present opening and the lack of (backfilled or otherwise) holes for
> the missing sarsens.
>
> If I rediscover the original citation I'll let you know through p.o-t.
>
Thank you! That is an intriguing possibility indeed.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The ground and the horizon are great, even gorgeous! The colors of the
stones fit, too.
But the emitting color of the stones is too much, and the sky don't looks
realistic enough. The stones seem to cast no shadow, this also makes it a
bit unrealistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
