 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
entry ( The Bridge Builders - 2008). I was never happy with the clouds
or having to have a full Earth. I have managed to change the cloud plane
and have a waxing gibbous Earth with the night side lights showing.
and the bridge is a model I made of the Forth rail bridge (SDL).
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'frailb04_19c1_0000.jpg' (269 KB)
Preview of image 'frailb04_19c1_0000.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-11-2012 22:41, Stephen wrote:
> entry ( The Bridge Builders - 2008). I was never happy with the
> clouds or having to have a full Earth. I have managed to change the
> cloud plane and have a waxing gibbous Earth with the night side lights
> showing.
> and the bridge is a model I made of the Forth rail bridge (SDL).
>
The clouds are better than in the original. However, I miss the haze of
the original which gave a nice atmospheric distance to the scene. Here,
it would diffuse a bit the sharp edge of the gibbous Earth.
I know that you use Bishop3D, would it be possible to use there Bill
Pragnell's Moon technique to make an even better Earth view? However,
that might then interfere with the bridge crossing the atmospheric
sphere; which you could then solve by making the bridge diminish to a
point before that crossing; which would however hide more the Skye
terminus... ;-)
A technique I used in "First Contact" back in 2008 too:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C47f79242%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=331022&toff=800&mtop=271206
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to agree with Thomas. May be the optimum is somewhere between both
versions. I missed the haze too. Now the picture has a little bit to much
brightness IMO, but we can see where the bridge ends :). At the missing half of
the earth there seems to be a kind of structure - only some points. Is it
intended?
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/11/2012 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> The clouds are better than in the original. However, I miss the haze of
> the original which gave a nice atmospheric distance to the scene. Here,
> it would diffuse a bit the sharp edge of the gibbous Earth.
>
Actually I like sharp images, but you do have a point.
> I know that you use Bishop3D, would it be possible to use there Bill
> Pragnell's Moon technique to make an even better Earth view?
Yes I could as I can include code to be rendered but I find that that
technique always gives me a washed out image and clouds that don't look
right.
> However, that might then interfere with the bridge crossing the atmospheric
> sphere; which you could then solve by making the bridge diminish to a
> point before that crossing; which would however hide more the Skye
> terminus... ;-)
> A technique I used in "First Contact" back in 2008 too:
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C47f79242%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=331022&toff=800&mtop=271206
>
I remember the post and it is an excellent image.
There was so much wrong with this scene. For one reason or another I
started with a scene that did not have any global settings and when I
added them I was so surprised at the difference that using Perlin
instead of PovRay 3.1 as a noise generator caused it took me ages to
find the cause of the discrepancy.
Anyway I have corrected a few faults in the bridge and here is the
latest rendering.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'frailb04_31fb_.jpg' (109 KB)
Preview of image 'frailb04_31fb_.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/11/2012 5:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> I have to agree with Thomas. May be the optimum is somewhere between both
> versions. I missed the haze too. Now the picture has a little bit to much
> brightness IMO, but we can see where the bridge ends :). At the missing half of
> the earth there seems to be a kind of structure - only some points. Is it
> intended?
>
Yes Michael it is intended. They should be more visible in the latest
image. They are city lights on the dark side of the Earth. I used two
Earth maps and differenced the day and night spheres. On the night map I
used PNG image with an alpha channel to get the transparancy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-11-2012 19:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> The clouds are better than in the original. However, I miss the haze of
>> the original which gave a nice atmospheric distance to the scene. Here,
>> it would diffuse a bit the sharp edge of the gibbous Earth.
>>
>
> Actually I like sharp images, but you do have a point.
Fair enough; You are the boss.
>
>> I know that you use Bishop3D, would it be possible to use there Bill
>> Pragnell's Moon technique to make an even better Earth view?
>
> Yes I could as I can include code to be rendered but I find that that
> technique always gives me a washed out image and clouds that don't look
> right.
Well, depends. Working with light_groups you could probably reach
identical results for the foreground.
>> A technique I used in "First Contact" back in 2008 too:
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C47f79242%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=331022&toff=800&mtop=271206
>
> I remember the post and it is an excellent image.
Hmm. Seeing it again: it might need a serious overhaul. I shall do that
one day probably... ;-)
> Anyway I have corrected a few faults in the bridge and here is the
> latest rendering.
Well, in any case, the journey to Skye has been made much smoother now
;-) They can expect a lot of visitors from abroad.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> Yes Michael it is intended. They should be more visible in the latest
> image. They are city lights on the dark side of the Earth. I used two
> Earth maps and differenced the day and night spheres. On the night map I
> used PNG image with an alpha channel to get the transparancy.
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Stephen
Ah, now I understand them. Yes with the new version they are better to
apprehend. But why Skye? As I know you didn't like Talisker...
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 09/11/2012 8:50 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> The clouds are better than in the original. However, I miss the haze of
>> the original which gave a nice atmospheric distance to the scene. Here,
>> it would diffuse a bit the sharp edge of the gibbous Earth.
>>
>
> Actually I like sharp images, but you do have a point.
>
>> I know that you use Bishop3D, would it be possible to use there Bill
>> Pragnell's Moon technique to make an even better Earth view?
>
> Yes I could as I can include code to be rendered but I find that that
> technique always gives me a washed out image and clouds that don't look
> right.
>
>> However, that might then interfere with the bridge crossing the
>> atmospheric
>> sphere; which you could then solve by making the bridge diminish to a
>> point before that crossing; which would however hide more the Skye
>> terminus... ;-)
>> A technique I used in "First Contact" back in 2008 too:
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3C47f79242%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=331022&toff=800&mtop=271206
>>
>>
>
> I remember the post and it is an excellent image.
>
> There was so much wrong with this scene. For one reason or another I
> started with a scene that did not have any global settings and when I
> added them I was so surprised at the difference that using Perlin
> instead of PovRay 3.1 as a noise generator caused it took me ages to
> find the cause of the discrepancy.
> Anyway I have corrected a few faults in the bridge and here is the
> latest rendering.
>
>
>
Nice indeed.
Just my own little gripe...
It loks like the bridge's piles are to short, giving the impression that
the whole bridge is actualy floating on the water instead of resting on
the sea bed.
Having some concreete blocks under the legs could be good. Given the
distance they are at, using a simple gray or brownish gray boxes should
be enough. It would even be OK if you stopped having them about mid-way
to the clouds.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-11-2012 22:46, MichaelJF wrote:
> Ah, now I understand them. Yes with the new version they are better to
> apprehend. But why Skye? As I know you didn't like Talisker...
/Over the sea to Skye/ is part of the refrain from the Skye Boat Song:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skye_Boat_Song
When I was younger, and playing the guitar, this was one of my
favourites :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 11-11-2012 22:46, MichaelJF wrote:
> > Ah, now I understand them. Yes with the new version they are better to
> > apprehend. But why Skye? As I know you didn't like Talisker...
>
> /Over the sea to Skye/ is part of the refrain from the Skye Boat Song:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skye_Boat_Song
>
> When I was younger, and playing the guitar, this was one of my
> favourites :-)
>
It is a fine song and one of a few boat songs, another good one is the Mingulay
Boat Song.
I believe that there is even a Skye Bridge song but that was a long time coming
as the bridge was first mooted at the end of the 19th Century. Ochone, ochone.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
