This example, with patchiness, illustrates a bit more question 2.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon.png' (608 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon.png'

On 02/10/12 09:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I seem to have seen this before.
>
> 1) What is causing these /nice/ rows? becoming visible when I
> increase the number of plants? They were already present in the
> original image but less conspicuous.
>
> 2) And why do they not correspond to the eval_pigment function
> selection (black corresponding to the inter-stone area)?
>
> 3) No difference with noise_generator 2 or 3.
>
> Thomas


  Difficult to say without the code... do you use totally random point's
over the floor to evaluate the pigment?

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2012 12:42, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>   Difficult to say without the code... do you use totally random point's
> over the floor to evaluate the pigment?

Yes, flat distribution. I either used rand, RRand, or Vrand_In_Box, with 
identical results.

I have now found that eval_pigment is the culprit. I probably need to 
rotate by 90*x the used image_map before testing the locations.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Lunch was the trigger :-)

I have made the mistake before: forgetting to rotate an image_map by 90 
degrees around the x-axis before using it in a scene. As a consequence, 
eval_pigment did not do its job correctly.

This is now corrected (see image).

[deep, strong voice in dark vault] Beware! Bewaare!! Always rotate your 
maps! [voice recedes slowly in distance]

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon.png' (712 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon.png'

On 02/10/12 13:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Lunch was the trigger :-)
>
> I have made the mistake before: forgetting to rotate an image_map by
> 90 degrees around the x-axis before using it in a scene. As a
> consequence, eval_pigment did not do its job correctly.
>
> This is now corrected (see image).
>
> [deep, strong voice in dark vault] Beware! Bewaare!! Always rotate
> your maps! [voice recedes slowly in distance]
>
> Thomas

   Ah... now makes sense: you were evaluation the side of the image,
which is usually a bunch of lines... ;)

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On 02/10/12 13:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is now corrected (see image).
>

   Oh, and indeed it looks convincing now... BTW, what's the black thing
at the right: a rat? ...if so, nice touch!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> On 02/10/12 13:20, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> > This is now corrected (see image).
> >
>
>    Oh, and indeed it looks convincing now... BTW, what's the black thing
> at the right: a rat? ...if so, nice touch!
>
> --
> Jaime

Looks like a lizard to me.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2012 13:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>    Oh, and indeed it looks convincing now... BTW, what's the black thing
> at the right: a rat? ...if so, nice touch!

A lizard. I have orientated it differently now: more light, less shadows 
(but not its last transformation I guess).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon_river harbour_13.png' (1296 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon_river harbour_13.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 2-10-2012 13:26, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> >    Oh, and indeed it looks convincing now... BTW, what's the black thing
> > at the right: a rat? ...if so, nice touch!
>
> A lizard. I have orientated it differently now: more light, less shadows
> (but not its last transformation I guess).

Thomas, I really like this concept and the scene is coming along beautifully
(love the grass!).

After reading a previous post, where the red sail seemed like a flag, it
occurred to me that the camera is at the height of sailor's thighs, and a
slightly higher (+y) camera position really would help to better spacially
orient the incoming ship, the buildings across the water, and the distant city.
Of course, a bit of atmospheric haze and focal blur can work wonders too :)

Cheers
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> A lizard. I have orientated it differently now: more light, less shadows
> (but not its last transformation I guess).

I like the progress on this image, very impressing. The axis between the two
men; the invisible line between their eyes is a main composition element that is
nicely echoed by other lines, and there are lines normal to this (the rope at
the front of the boat especially) that binds the composition together. The
clouds make an arc that is echoed in the line of the bright hill in the
background. The direction of the lines in the foreground also contributes in a
good way.

A few points on the composition, if I may: the lizard seems to me to point out
of the image. I believe it would be better if its nose was turned to maybe seven
or eight o'clock (in the image plane, that is). That way it would keep the flow
of the composition back into the image. The lizard has become a very important
element in this image, and should be placed exactly right. (Have a look at
Rembrandts anatomy lesson; the book on the right stops all the gazes of the
men.)

The light horizontal line of the edge of the dockside (is that the correct
word?) (in front of the man on the right) is broken by the man and the packages,
but seems a bit even; the stones could perhaps be a little jumbled, and if the
camera is turned slightly, it wouldn't be exactly horizontal as it looks now.

The hill in the background - is it perhaps too bright? I'm thinking it draws the
attention into the middle of the image and not letting the eyes wander around.
The brightest area in an image will often get the most attention.

But maybe I'm wrong about these things, this is your image, after all. I'm
looking forward to the next versions.

H

Post a reply to this message