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

On 3-10-2012 3:13, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Thomas, I really like this concept and the scene is coming along beautifully
> (love the grass!).

Thank you Robert! Things are going fine indeed and the more I work on 
the scene, the more there is to do in addition, including rethinking of 
older concepts.

>
> 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 :)

Yes, that might become necessary, although I like the low point of view, 
as if the observer was sitting down. I shall have a few try outs and see 
where this gets me.

There is a faint haze over the whole scene, less visible here than in 
panoramic views because everything is nearer the observer of course. 
However, I can play with this a bit more in this scene, increasing the 
number of controls I have to tweak while exploring the city ;-)

I am not too keen on focal blur in these kind of scenes. I do not want 
to focus on a particular area but leave the viewer the possibility to 
discover his/her own focus as it were.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 3:24, helge_h wrote:
> 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.

Thank you indeed for your careful analysis! You have seen things I had 
not been aware of. Some compositional elements happen just by chance 
(the clouds for instance), others seem to be more or less subconsciously 
controlled.

>
> 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.)

Like I said, the lizard's position was not yet fixed and I fully agree 
with your observation. In the mean time, I have already rotated it 
inwards to the scene. I scaled it a bit down too.

>
> 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.

At present, the quay edge consists of a simple image_map (within a more 
complex layered texture of course) on a rather simple mesh. For this 
view, I agree that the stones need a more interesting aspect. Can easily 
be implemented :-). This viewpoint is very straightforward and a bit of 
camera rotation is certainly a must here.

>
> 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.

Yes. The texture of the hills has not really changed since I began 
working on this project. I agree about the brightness (and some other 
things too I have in mind). The texture needs an overhaul.

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

No, you are perfectly right and I think that I would have made some 
transformations in that direction anyway, but it is good to hear it from 
somebody else, giving confirmation to doubts or enabling me to see 
things I have been blind to. Thank you for this.

There is still a lot of work to do on this scene, in terms of 
(additional) objects, textures, layout... and story telling.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Le 03/10/2012 09:42, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Yes, that might become necessary, although I like the low point of view,
> as if the observer was sitting down. I shall have a few try outs and see
> where this gets me.

I like it too, but not as the observer is sitting: the observer is on a
small boat on the otherside of the quay, maybe stepping up on that quay
soon.

I'm still hesitant on one point: the moire that appears on the parcels.
It is somehow ok, as reflecting the texture of the material (not in
Pov-sdl meaning),yet it's an artefact shooting loud about computer graphics.

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I'm still hesitant on one point: the moire that appears on the parcels.
> It is somehow ok, as reflecting the texture of the material (not in
> Pov-sdl meaning),yet it's an artefact shooting loud about computer graphics.

I see it more as a common digital/video artifact, not specific to CG. More AA?

http://www.ishootshows.com/2012/04/09/understanding-moire-patterns-in-digital-photography/

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 10:06, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 03/10/2012 09:42, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> Yes, that might become necessary, although I like the low point of view,
>> as if the observer was sitting down. I shall have a few try outs and see
>> where this gets me.
>
> I like it too, but not as the observer is sitting: the observer is on a
> small boat on the otherside of the quay, maybe stepping up on that quay
> soon.

No, there is no water behind the observer; there is the extension of the 
city walls, so the observer /is/ sitting down in this version ;-)

>
> I'm still hesitant on one point: the moire that appears on the parcels.
> It is somehow ok, as reflecting the texture of the material (not in
> Pov-sdl meaning),yet it's an artefact shooting loud about computer graphics.

I don't know what to do about it. It is the cloth texture image_map and 
normal_map doing this of course. One possibility is making the cloth 
coarser.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-10-2012 10:06, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> >
> > I'm still hesitant on one point: the moire that appears on the parcels.
> > It is somehow ok, as reflecting the texture of the material (not in
> > Pov-sdl meaning),yet it's an artefact shooting loud about computer graphics.
>
> I don't know what to do about it. It is the cloth texture image_map and
> normal_map doing this of course. One possibility is making the cloth
> coarser.
>
Do you need to do anything about the moiré pattern? We see them in real life
with our own eyes. Although in materials they tend to be very fine ones.

One thing that is bugging me is the water. I agree that in a river or estuary
you do get outflows of mud and silt after a heavy rainfall. But I think that the
brown water in the harbour is more like an industrial scene. Thinking back to
small harbours that I have seen, the water was always crystal clear. You could
even count the fish.

Post a reply to this message

Le 03/10/2012 13:10, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> I like it too, but not as the observer is sitting: the observer is on a
>> small boat on the otherside of the quay, maybe stepping up on that quay
>> soon.
> 
> No, there is no water behind the observer; there is the extension of the
> city walls, so the observer /is/ sitting down in this version ;-)

Hey, you choose what I can see on the picture, but you have no power
over what I imagine out of it!
At least, not until the thought-police come into action and break my
door and all the windows in the assault.

 ;-)

P.S. : now if you can justify a mirror in the scene, I might be stuck!

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 15:39, Stephen wrote:
> Do you need to do anything about the moiré pattern? We see them in real life
> with our own eyes. Although in materials they tend to be very fine ones.

True, but I can at least try to reduce a bit the worse effects. If not 
satisfying, I shall leave it as is.

>
> One thing that is bugging me is the water. I agree that in a river or estuary
> you do get outflows of mud and silt after a heavy rainfall. But I think that the
> brown water in the harbour is more like an industrial scene. Thinking back to
> small harbours that I have seen, the water was always crystal clear. You could
> even count the fish.

Good point, but remember that this harbour is open to the river, not to 
the sea. There may be sea water influxes from tides (feeble in the 
Mediterranean) or from sea wind, but then that would probably also 
become murky from the shallow bottom... and I don't know how well the 
sewage system of Gancaloon functions ;-)

As a good comparison, how clear is the Nile water close to the 
Mediterranean? Well, watching through Google Earth, not too murky it 
seems... I shall have to decide how murky the Yann is.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 16:03, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 03/10/2012 13:10, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> No, there is no water behind the observer; there is the extension of the
>> city walls, so the observer /is/ sitting down in this version ;-)
>
> Hey, you choose what I can see on the picture, but you have no power
> over what I imagine out of it!
> At least, not until the thought-police come into action and break my
> door and all the windows in the assault.

LOL! You remind me of that story about Asimov (iirc) who attended a 
lecture about his own work, where the speaker explained all the 
different things that could be deduced from the work. Afterwards, Asimov 
told the speaker that he had never intended all those things. At which 
the speaker said: "What do you know? you are only the author."

> P.S. : now if you can justify a mirror in the scene, I might be stuck!

I shall, to your own disgrace ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 03/10/12 16:11, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> As a good comparison, how clear is the Nile water close to the
> Mediterranean? Well, watching through Google Earth, not too murky it
>  seems... I shall have to decide how murky the Yann is.

   It can be as murky as you want, but consider de-saturating a bit the
brown color (I would even make it more greenish).

Post a reply to this message

On 03/10/2012 3:11 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 3-10-2012 15:39, Stephen wrote:
>> Do you need to do anything about the moiré pattern? We see them in
>> real life
>> with our own eyes. Although in materials they tend to be very fine ones.
>
> True, but I can at least try to reduce a bit the worse effects. If not
> satisfying, I shall leave it as is.
>

It will be interesting to see how it develops.

>
> Good point, but remember that this harbour is open to the river, not to
> the sea. There may be sea water influxes from tides (feeble in the
> Mediterranean) or from sea wind, but then that would probably also
> become murky from the shallow bottom... and I don't know how well the
> sewage system of Gancaloon functions ;-)
>
> As a good comparison, how clear is the Nile water close to the
> Mediterranean? Well, watching through Google Earth, not too murky it
> seems... I shall have to decide how murky the Yann is.
>

I don’t want to nitpick but as usual I will ;-)

Remember a harbour is designed to give ships protection so the water 
will be relatively calm. Any silt would drop out. And from memory, silt 
enriched rivers tend to be cloudier in the centre where the flow is 
faster. Going from the layout of Gancaloon in your post “Transition 
between two medias: Final result” the harbour is well designed.
But as Jaime said “It can be as murky as you want”



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 22:24, Stephen wrote:
> I don’t want to nitpick but as usual I will ;-)

Which is an excellent quality :-)

>
> Remember a harbour is designed to give ships protection so the water
> will be relatively calm. Any silt would drop out. And from memory, silt
> enriched rivers tend to be cloudier in the centre where the flow is
> faster.

There is silt and silt. The finest particles will remain in suspension 
longer and, in the end, you will not see much difference between the 
central flow of the river and its borders. Well, close up maybe some but 
not dramatically so, with some transparency as a bonus, but all depends 
on the power of the stream.

Going from the layout of Gancaloon in your post “Transition
> between two medias: Final result” the harbour is well designed.

Indeed, but now you are making my work very difficult ;-)

The water transition between river and sea has been designed on 
"planetary" scale. This means that the whole water surface you see in 
the scenes is a huge sphere. It would be nice to control the river water 
from point to point but that would mean a break up of the sphere and a 
difficult design in the end. I am not (yet) up to that I must confess.

> But as Jaime said “It can be as murky as you want”

Yes, and that is the approach I would prefer for the time being.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 17:44, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>    It can be as murky as you want, but consider de-saturating a bit the
> brown color (I would even make it more greenish).

Yes, that was one of the ToDo things on my list. I left it as is because 
I like to imagine the muddy character of the river, at least during 
certain seasons of the year. In the end, however, I shall have to design 
a whole scale of different hues reflecting those same seasonal changes.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-10-2012 17:44, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> >    It can be as murky as you want, but consider de-saturating a bit the
> > brown color (I would even make it more greenish).
>
> Yes, that was one of the ToDo things on my list. I left it as is because
> I like to imagine the muddy character of the river,


Now I understand. It is the river Ankh. :-)

Stephen Stronginthearm

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-10-2012 22:24, Stephen wrote:
> > I don’t want to nitpick but as usual I will ;-)
>
> Which is an excellent quality :-)
>

It can be a bit irritating, though.


>
> There is silt and silt. The finest particles will remain in suspension
> longer and, in the end, you will not see much difference between the
> central flow of the river and its borders. Well, close up maybe some but
> not dramatically so, with some transparency as a bonus, but all depends
> on the power of the stream.
>

Okay, no more arguments.

> Going from the layout of Gancaloon in your post “Transition
> > between two medias: Final result” the harbour is well designed.
>
> Indeed, but now you are making my work very difficult ;-)
>

:-P

> The water transition between river and sea has been designed on
> "planetary" scale. This means that the whole water surface you see in
> the scenes is a huge sphere. It would be nice to control the river water
> from point to point but that would mean a break up of the sphere and a
> difficult design in the end. I am not (yet) up to that I must confess.
>

And you say that *I* am making your work difficult. Look in the mirror that you
promised Le_Forgeron.

PS A polished shield would make a believable mirror.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2012 9:45, Stephen wrote:
> Now I understand. It is the river Ankh. :-)
>
> Stephen Stronginthearm

I didn't cross my mind, but yes, there might be some (smelly) similarity 
with that particular one ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2012 9:54, Stephen wrote:
> And you say that *I* am making your work difficult. Look in the mirror that you
> promised Le_Forgeron.

I have not looked in a mirror for ages... In fact, I am not even sure a 
mirror would reflect my face... ;-)

>
> PS A polished shield would make a believable mirror.

Interesting idea. First I need to texture the walls behind the camera.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Find the differences :-)

Many questions have been addressed (sort of) some remaining, notably the 
fact that I still need to uv_map most of the ship's textures.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon_river harbour_14.png' (1238 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon_river harbour_14.png'

Am 04.10.2012 10:36, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> Find the differences :-)
>
> Many questions have been addressed (sort of) some remaining, notably the
> fact that I still need to uv_map most of the ship's textures.
>
I did find your earlier camera view much more interesting. This one is 
just conventional and while everybody knows the name of the director, a 
great cinematographer can make a huge difference ;)

-Ive

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Find the differences :-)
>
> Many questions have been addressed (sort of) some remaining, notably the
> fact that I still need to uv_map most of the ship's textures.

I liked the lower camera better.

The burlap is much improved.

The statue bronze could be a little darker, unless you want it to blend into the
background.

The red of the sail strikes me as too saturated. It seems glaringly out-of-place
and a bit too attention-grabbing.

I think I've seen the kid sitting on the wharf before, in another CG, in the
exact same pose.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2012 17:11, Ive wrote:
> I did find your earlier camera view much more interesting. This one is
> just conventional and while everybody knows the name of the director, a
> great cinematographer can make a huge difference ;)

Yes, that was also my verdict, but I had to show this version to be 
believable.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2012 23:01, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> I liked the lower camera better.

Me too!!

>
> The burlap is much improved.
>
> The statue bronze could be a little darker, unless you want it to blend into the
> background.

It is a stone texture, not bronze.

>
> The red of the sail strikes me as too saturated. It seems glaringly out-of-place
> and a bit too attention-grabbing.

Absolutely. I have already been busy fading the colour.

>
> I think I've seen the kid sitting on the wharf before, in another CG, in the
> exact same pose.

You have an excellent eye for details! ;-) The kid appears in a TC-RTC 
scene: September 2009. He is place holder for the time being and will 
probably change a bit later, at least his clothing.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 3-10-2012 16:03, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> P.S. : now if you can justify a mirror in the scene, I might be stuck!
>

Instead of a mirror ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'gancaloon.png' (994 KB)

Preview of image 'gancaloon.png'

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Instead of a mirror ;-)

Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>
> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P

I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO

I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6-10-2012 19:41, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>
> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P

My budget does not permit me more than a few featureless screens :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>
>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>
> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO

... and with time for modelling ;-)

>
> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)

Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>>
>>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>>
>> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO
>
> .... and with time for modelling ;-)
>

And computer resources.
It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The 
Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to 
PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse 
and render.

>>
>> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)
>
> Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P
>

Well sometimes I've done that. My entry for the Mother Hive had a large 
head (no_image) behind the camera so I could get a reflection of a face.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 12:05, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>>>
>>> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO
>>
>> .... and with time for modelling ;-)
>>
>
> And computer resources.
> It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The
> Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to
> PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse
> and render.

Fortunately, this is decreasing with faster machines. The present image 
takes 12 minutes to parse and render, using 6 threads.

What is really time consuming are the details one wants to include. The 
whole harbour architecture has yet to be modelled in detail, and 
textured, and that takes days if not weeks (the ships are good examples 
for that). Often with many invisible parts, but one never knows if a 
future scene will not need those as yet invisible parts.

>
>>>
>>> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)
>>
>> Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P
>>
>
> Well sometimes I've done that. My entry for the Mother Hive had a large
> head (no_image) behind the camera so I could get a reflection of a face.

Oh yes, that can be a nice touch.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 12:16 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> And computer resources.
>> It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The
>> Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to
>> PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse
>> and render.
>
> Fortunately, this is decreasing with faster machines. The present image
> takes 12 minutes to parse and render, using 6 threads.
>

Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you 
want to do with it?


> What is really time consuming are the details one wants to include. The
> whole harbour architecture has yet to be modelled in detail, and
> textured, and that takes days if not weeks (the ships are good examples
> for that).

Yes too true.

> Often with many invisible parts, but one never knows if a
> future scene will not need those as yet invisible parts.

I generally make the full model, save it, then strip out the parts that 
can't be seen directly or in reflection. Just for performance.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 13:43, Stephen wrote:
> Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you
> want to do with it?

Yes and no in fact. I still try to do an as /stream-lined/ job as possible.


> I generally make the full model, save it, then strip out the parts that
> can't be seen directly or in reflection. Just for performance.

Indeed. I also trim down as much as possible.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 3:02 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-10-2012 13:43, Stephen wrote:
>> Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you
>> want to do with it?
>
> Yes and no in fact. I still try to do an as /stream-lined/ job as possible.
>

I am beginning to learn that lesson.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 16:30, Stephen wrote:
> I am beginning to learn that lesson.
>

There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex 
scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most 
cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 3:43 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-10-2012 16:30, Stephen wrote:
>> I am beginning to learn that lesson.
>>
>
> There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex
> scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most
> cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.
>

Well it must be because I use Bishop3D. That is where my bottleneck must 
be. I really hate the way it handles meshes but I love the way it can 
import Pov files.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)! (back on the scene after fixing some problems with my DSL adaptor)

> There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex
> scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most
> cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.

If one aims at entire consistent worlds (like I do) rather than single 
high-quality artistic scenes (which of course would mean leaving out any 
detail in the back of the camera which is not essential for the scene 
proper), the appropriate machine probably never will be built.

On the other hand, the more powerful computers develop, the more 
difficult and time-consuming making use of their full potential will be 
- even to the point that you wish to work with more sophisticated tools 
than pure POV SDL. Probably Blender?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

On 15-10-2012 22:10, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)! (back on the scene after fixing some problems with my DSL adaptor)

Missed you indeed.

>
>> There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex
>> scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most
>> cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.
>
> If one aims at entire consistent worlds (like I do) rather than single
> high-quality artistic scenes (which of course would mean leaving out any
> detail in the back of the camera which is not essential for the scene
> proper), the appropriate machine probably never will be built.

The main problem, I guess, is the fact that the time needed just to 
model increases exponentially while the project grows, being it a whole 
world or just scenes from a world. A lifetime is not enough by far. If 
one really would want to achieve significant progress then a kind of 
huge coordinated collaboration (something resembling Galaxy Zoo?) or a 
dedicated enterprise would be needed... ;-)
Personally, I am just content to slowly explore my world and discover 
new things around the corner unexpectedly. I am often much surprised by 
what I find.

>
> On the other hand, the more powerful computers develop, the more
> difficult and time-consuming making use of their full potential will be
> - even to the point that you wish to work with more sophisticated tools
> than pure POV SDL. Probably Blender?

Yes, that is certainly the case. Personally, I use external tools for 
most of the work, bringing the results together in POV for the scene 
building and some POV-specific modelling of course.
Blender is something I am (slowly) learning, but my principal tools are 
Silo2Pro, Poser, Poseray, and GeoControl, and a collection of others for 
particular cases.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)!

On 16.10.2012 09:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
 >
 > The main problem, I guess, is the fact that the time needed just to
 > model increases exponentially while the project grows, being it a
 > whole world or just scenes from a world. A lifetime is not enough by 
 > far.

There are principally two solutions to this problem: either increasing 
the lifespan of the individual by several orders of magnitude (at my 
current pace, I would be done with the terrain relief of entire 
Afghanistan not before 2750 - unless I find a way to drastically reduce 
the time for interpolating the contour lines from those 1:100,000 
Soviet-made topographic maps... but even then alone building the terrain 
would take me several decades...

 > If one really would want to achieve significant progress then a kind 
 > of huge coordinated collaboration (something resembling Galaxy Zoo?) 
  > or a dedicated enterprise would be needed... ;-)

...or, yes, finding A LOT OF people working together in this task! But 
the probability of finding only ten people on this planet which are both 
3D and Afghanistan enthusiasts to embark on such a huge project is next 
to zero - who on Earth needs Khyberspace? Then with all the intricate 
twists and turns of global politics in the clash of civilizations 
between the West and the Islamic world... just imagine what could happen 
if any Khyberspace programmer is uncautious enough to accidentally draw 
the ire of some jihadists toward the project! Not only Afghan nationals 
involved in Khyberspace could be in serious danger then! At the moment I 
seriously doubt whether I ever should make Khyberspace public...

 > Yes, that is certainly the case. Personally, I use external tools
 > for most of the work, bringing the results together in POV for the
 > scene building and some POV-specific modelling of course.
 > Blender is something I am (slowly) learning,

I also started working through the 1,800-page manual of the current 2.63 
version...

 > but my principal tools are Silo2Pro, Poser, Poseray, and GeoControl,

GeoControl? Does it also provide a way to convert geodesical (i. e. also 
heightfield coordinates derived from a large-scale topographic map) into 
geographic coordinates? Would be very convenient for me...

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Now playing: To One In Paradise (The Alan Parsons Project)

Post a reply to this message

On 21-10-2012 3:38, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 16.10.2012 09:30, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>  >
>  > The main problem, I guess, is the fact that the time needed just to
>  > model increases exponentially while the project grows, being it a
>  > whole world or just scenes from a world. A lifetime is not enough by
>  > far.
>
> There are principally two solutions to this problem: either increasing
> the lifespan of the individual by several orders of magnitude (at my
> current pace, I would be done with the terrain relief of entire
> Afghanistan not before 2750 - unless I find a way to drastically reduce
> the time for interpolating the contour lines from those 1:100,000
> Soviet-made topographic maps... but even then alone building the terrain
> would take me several decades...

LOL Yes indeed. The philosophical conclusion of this would be to be 
happy with what we are humbly able to achieve within our lifetime.

>
>  > If one really would want to achieve significant progress then a kind
>  > of huge coordinated collaboration (something resembling Galaxy Zoo?)
>   > or a dedicated enterprise would be needed... ;-)
>
> ...or, yes, finding A LOT OF people working together in this task! But
> the probability of finding only ten people on this planet which are both
> 3D and Afghanistan enthusiasts to embark on such a huge project is next
> to zero - who on Earth needs Khyberspace? Then with all the intricate
> twists and turns of global politics in the clash of civilizations
> between the West and the Islamic world... just imagine what could happen
> if any Khyberspace programmer is uncautious enough to accidentally draw
> the ire of some jihadists toward the project! Not only Afghan nationals
> involved in Khyberspace could be in serious danger then! At the moment I
> seriously doubt whether I ever should make Khyberspace public...

Yes, this certainly is an issue and not a small one.

> GeoControl? Does it also provide a way to convert geodesical (i. e. also
> heightfield coordinates derived from a large-scale topographic map) into
> geographic coordinates? Would be very convenient for me...

I am not sure. I am using an older version presently which can import 
files from Terragen, Carrara, Bryce, or Vue, including image_maps. 
However, you can visit the site for more info:

http://www.cajomi.de/GeoControl/geocontrol.htm

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.10.2012 13:10, schrieb Thomas de Groot:

>> I'm still hesitant on one point: the moire that appears on the parcels.
>> It is somehow ok, as reflecting the texture of the material (not in
>> Pov-sdl meaning),yet it's an artefact shooting loud about computer
>> graphics.
>
> I don't know what to do about it. It is the cloth texture image_map and
> normal_map doing this of course. One possibility is making the cloth
> coarser.

An ever-so-slight focal blur might help, too. It's sometimes superior to AA.

Post a reply to this message

On 24-10-2012 0:20, clipka wrote:
> An ever-so-slight focal blur might help, too. It's sometimes superior to
> AA.

Yes, that is true. I shall keep that in mind and have try at it, 
especially when the scene is being completed (whenever that shall be...).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message