>Thomas de Groot  on date 10/12/2009 13:49 wrote:
> 
> No! No! No path here! We are in really wild territory where few humans have 
> trode  :)  Consider yourself as a scout...
> 
> Please be patient. Animal(s) will certainly appear in a later stage, when I 
> am doneand satisfied with the landscape.
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 
I'm a very patient man...
;-)
Paolo

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> This is interesting I believe, although still far from perfect. What I did
> here is:
>
> - introduce a spherical pattern to make the normal in the rock texture
> gradually disappear;
> - add trees to the background valley with a treeline somewhere in the snow;
> - add rocks to the surface and make them scale down with distance.
>
> Thomas

My first thought on seeing your 2nd WIP was, "Oh, now there are too *many*
rocks."  But actually, it does look right, in the way that shards of rock break
off and congregate on the slope near the bottom of a rocky cliff, after eons of
going through the freeze/thaw cycle.

Looking better and better!

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4b21d5e95af25d565f302820@news.povray.org...
>
> My first thought on seeing your 2nd WIP was, "Oh, now there are too *many*
> rocks."  But actually, it does look right, in the way that shards of rock 
> break
> off and congregate on the slope near the bottom of a rocky cliff, after 
> eons of
> going through the freeze/thaw cycle.

It is a difficult balance, I know, but I think that the number or 
concentrations of rocks are fairly natural looking. The higher slopes would 
be too steep here to be stable (>35-37 degrees, which is the maximum in 
general) but who cares? I am not after total RL copying  ;-)

> Looking better and better!

Thank you!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4b20f1cb5af25d56dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
>
> Looks like lammergeier country to me. I bet you can't find one of *those* 
> on
> Daz3d!

I have an eagle. Will that do?   :)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> - introduce a spherical pattern to make the normal in the rock texture 
> gradually disappear;
> - add trees to the background valley with a treeline somewhere in the snow;
> - add rocks to the surface and make them scale down with distance.
> 

this one is looking really *cool* and the rocks do add a lot.
Some of the "teeth" of the center mountain do look a bit strange to me 
but IIRC you are the geologist and not me so what do I know ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Ive wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>> - introduce a spherical pattern to make the normal in the rock texture 
>> gradually disappear;
>> - add trees to the background valley with a treeline somewhere in the 
>> snow;
>> - add rocks to the surface and make them scale down with distance.
>>
> 
> this one is looking really *cool* and the rocks do add a lot.
> Some of the "teeth" of the center mountain do look a bit strange to me 
> but IIRC you are the geologist and not me so what do I know ;)
> 
> -Ive

Yes, in the whole seeing-is-believing/believing-is-seeing dance we do 
with this medium, Thomas' street creds in the geology area count for a 
LOT.  (Your's too in the lighting arena btw ;) )

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4b2586e4$1@news.povray.org...
> Ive wrote:
>>
>> this one is looking really *cool* and the rocks do add a lot.
>> Some of the "teeth" of the center mountain do look a bit strange to me 
>> but IIRC you are the geologist and not me so what do I know ;)
>>
>> -Ive
>
> Yes, in the whole seeing-is-believing/believing-is-seeing dance we do with 
> this medium, Thomas' street creds in the geology area count for a LOT. 
> (Your's too in the lighting arena btw ;) )

Thank you dear sirs!

To tell the truth, I think that Ive's expertise in lighting and image 
control is more fundamental in our mutual business than my knowledge of 
geology :-)
That said, while I try to use geology to a certain extent, it also often 
gets in the way of pure creation, so it is finding the right balance. 
Certainly, the *teeth* are pure WM artifacts (which I have not been able to 
eradicate completely) but under some conditions you can find them in nature 
too, as particular erosional features. I like to imagine that this landscape 
shows steeply inclined, almost vertical, rock layers running over the ridge.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, in the whole seeing-is-believing/believing-is-seeing dance we do with 
>> this medium, Thomas' street creds in the geology area count for a LOT. 
>> (Your's too in the lighting arena btw ;) )

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> To tell the truth, I think that Ive's expertise in lighting and image 
> control is more fundamental in our mutual business than my knowledge of 
> geology :-)
> That said, while I try to use geology to a certain extent, it also often 
> gets in the way of pure creation, so it is finding the right balance. 
> Certainly, the *teeth* are pure WM artifacts (which I have not been able to 
> eradicate completely) but under some conditions you can find them in nature 
> too, as particular erosional features. I like to imagine that this landscape 
> shows steeply inclined, almost vertical, rock layers running over the ridge.
> 

Thanks for the flowers ;) but to me it seems by being a *hobbyist* and 
not a "pro" in the business (who is always restricted by deadlines and 
so has to work in a much more economical way) that almost everything is 
equally fundamental. So I am quite interested in e.g. Thomas' 
explanation how rock layers would run.

Like Thomas (and I believe this is also true for you, Jim) I'm not 
aiming for photorealism. But I think trying to achieve it is a quite 
interesting, entertaining and educational experience. It forces us to 
look very carefully at the "real stuff" to see how things look and - 
especially for the use within a renderer like POV-Ray - we have also to 
try to understand *why* things look the way they do.

My final goal (that I will never reach, but at least trying to get there 
is the main part of the fun) would be to have complete freedom of choice 
how photo-real, hyper-real, un-real, whatever-real an image of mine 
should look like.

I have mentioned the Chinese movie director Wong Kar-Way already a few 
times. What I do find so interesting about his movies (besides that I 
simply love them) is that they are just shot at real locations and he 
just works with the given real lighting conditions but achieves often an 
effect that especially those extremely beautiful Chinese actresses (and 
actors btw) appear sometimes almost ghostly and over worldly.
For sure locations, camera positions and so on are very carefully chosen 
but it is a completely different way as the common hollywood-shot where 
a lot of afford goes into artificial lighting setup and post processing 
to make things *look* real.
It would be quite interesting to extract some Wong Kar-Way movie stills 
from blue-ray discs (not available yet) and post them into some 
CG-forums (or here ;)) - by claiming they are CG. I'm pretty sure that a 
lot of people would criticize that it is too obvious CG, that the face 
looks too perfect and symmetric or even locate it deep in the "uncanny 
valley".

So much from me on that seeing-is-believing/believing-is-seeing 
dance/balance for now.

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

"Ive" <"ive### [at] lilysoftorg"> schreef in bericht 
news:4b262932$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Thanks for the flowers ;) but to me it seems by being a *hobbyist* and not 
> a "pro" in the business (who is always restricted by deadlines and so has 
> to work in a much more economical way) that almost everything is equally 
> fundamental. So I am quite interested in e.g. Thomas' explanation how rock 
> layers would run.

I suppose we try to integrate as smoothly as possible our knowledge, and the 
knowledge of others, in our personal dreams and creations. That is why these 
forums are so hugely important: because of the synergy and the 
cross-fertilisation of ideas and techniques.

>
> Like Thomas (and I believe this is also true for you, Jim) I'm not aiming 
> for photorealism. But I think trying to achieve it is a quite interesting, 
> entertaining and educational experience. It forces us to look very 
> carefully at the "real stuff" to see how things look and - especially for 
> the use within a renderer like POV-Ray - we have also to try to understand 
> *why* things look the way they do.

Absolutely true.

>
> My final goal (that I will never reach, but at least trying to get there 
> is the main part of the fun) would be to have complete freedom of choice 
> how photo-real, hyper-real, un-real, whatever-real an image of mine should 
> look like.

<grin> yes, yes!

>
> I have mentioned the Chinese movie director Wong Kar-Way already a few 
> times. What I do find so interesting about his movies (besides that I 
> simply love them) is that they are just shot at real locations and he just 
> works with the given real lighting conditions but achieves often an effect 
> that especially those extremely beautiful Chinese actresses (and actors 
> btw) appear sometimes almost ghostly and over worldly.
> For sure locations, camera positions and so on are very carefully chosen 
> but it is a completely different way as the common hollywood-shot where a 
> lot of afford goes into artificial lighting setup and post processing to 
> make things *look* real.
> It would be quite interesting to extract some Wong Kar-Way movie stills 
> from blue-ray discs (not available yet) and post them into some CG-forums 
> (or here ;)) - by claiming they are CG. I'm pretty sure that a lot of 
> people would criticize that it is too obvious CG, that the face looks too 
> perfect and symmetric or even locate it deep in the "uncanny valley".

I agree.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Not bad at all, as usual! Still, some details missing. Small stones or 
pebbles, and maybe some small plants or mosses. Not sure.

Sven

Post a reply to this message