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