 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This one is about Deep Time, i.e. the ages needed for sedimentation -
uplift - erosion.
The Victorian gentleman, obviously is Charles Lyell.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology3_04.png' (556 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology3_04.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> This one is about Deep Time, i.e. the ages needed for sedimentation -
> uplift - erosion.
>
> The Victorian gentleman, obviously is Charles Lyell.
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
Nice composition on this one, for me the grass in the foreground would be better
if real grass (I am guessing it is just a texture currently?)
Also, I think the grass in the distance is too bright/green.
I assume the fog is media? If not I would be interested to see your settings as
I never have much luck at getting a good turbulent ground fog using the fog
statement.
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 1:49, s.day wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Nice composition on this one, for me the grass in the foreground would be better
> if real grass (I am guessing it is just a texture currently?)
You are absolutely right. This image is not the final version, and the
foreground will also show some trees.
>
> Also, I think the grass in the distance is too bright/green.
Yes, I believe so too.
>
> I assume the fog is media? If not I would be interested to see your settings as
> I never have much luck at getting a good turbulent ground fog using the fog
> statement.
This is indeed a media. Neither could I indeed get a good enough
turbulent ground fog. It always looks too splotchy. Media does a much
better job.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 02/06/2013 14.19 wrote:
> This one is about Deep Time, i.e. the ages needed for sedimentation -
> uplift - erosion.
>
> The Victorian gentleman, obviously is Charles Lyell.
>
> Thomas
A very nice scene.
Could be interesting trying a render in sepia tones?
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And a new version.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology3_05.png' (639 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology3_05.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 9:58, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> A very nice scene.
> Could be interesting trying a render in sepia tones?
Yes, certainly. As a post-processing product here... ;-)
As a render, I would add other things, like scratches, stains, faded
areas... I shall look into this.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology3_05_sepia.png' (527 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology3_05_sepia.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 03/06/2013 13.22 wrote:
> As a render, I would add other things, like scratches, stains, faded
> areas... I shall look into this.
>
> Thomas
>
>
Hey, stop post here old daguerreotypes!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 15:55, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Hey, stop post here old daguerreotypes!
> ;-)
<grin> Still, that would be a nice idea... I think I shall follow up
that hint...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/13 12:14, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> And a new version.
>
> Thomas
>
...and the original photograph ;-D
John
--
The level of my sarcasm depends upon the level of your stupidity
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/13 18:58, Doctor John wrote:
> On 03/06/13 12:14, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> And a new version.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
> ....and the original photograph ;-D
>
> John
>
Oops! Forgot the attachment. Mea culpa
John
--
The level of my sarcasm depends upon the level of your stupidity
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'tdg.png' (358 KB)
Preview of image 'tdg.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> And a new version.
>
> Thomas
It's looking good, Thomas. The foreground is nicely detailed. Are you using or
planning to use backside illumination for the grass/small plants? The distant
cliffsides could use some surface normals, perhaps aligned with the strata.
Other than that, everything's shaping up nicely :)
So how many days are really left until we can no longer upload our entries? The
TC-RTC site seems to give different deadlines. If it's really only 13 days, I'm
screwed :S
Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
The logging trails also confuse the matter.
Other than that, I've been distracted by the new version of Blender, and have
been learning as much of it as I can. Which, of course, means I haven't taken
the time to work on my challenge entries! So I really hope we have more than 13
days left :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/2013 8:20 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
> So I really hope we have more than 13 days left:)
Worry not, Sam. The site has not been modified yet so we are running two
back to back Challenges as one. You have 15 days plus two months left.
That is 75 days until the deadline.
It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 8:20 PM, Samuel Benge wrote:
> > So I really hope we have more than 13 days left:)
>
> Worry not, Sam. The site has not been modified yet so we are running two
> back to back Challenges as one. You have 15 days plus two months left.
> That is 75 days until the deadline.
Ah, thank goodness :)
> It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
> Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
In that case, I'm definitely glad I haven't uploaded anything yet.
I haven't been able to pull up the TINA CHeP forums in two days, or post
anything for several. (I'm not intentionally ignoring my fellow 'cheppers!)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 20:01, Doctor John wrote:
>> ....and the original photograph ;-D
>>
That is very credible indeed. You found me out ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 21:20, Samuel Benge wrote:
> It's looking good, Thomas. The foreground is nicely detailed. Are you using or
> planning to use backside illumination for the grass/small plants? The distant
> cliffsides could use some surface normals, perhaps aligned with the strata.
> Other than that, everything's shaping up nicely :)
Thanks Sam. Backside illumination is something I have to look into
indeed. Good suggestion. The cliff normals is also something on the todo
list; there is a general normal there but some detailed alignment is
certainly in order.
> Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
> area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
> been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
> bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
> The logging trails also confuse the matter.
Interesting. Sources may be difficult to find as the geology in your
area is rather complex. Stream beds may not be a bad place to look I
guess, not like gold placers of course, but in areas were some pebble
size sorting has been active.
>
> Other than that, I've been distracted by the new version of Blender, and have
> been learning as much of it as I can. Which, of course, means I haven't taken
> the time to work on my challenge entries! So I really hope we have more than 13
> days left :)
Still on my todo...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 22:13, Stephen wrote:
> It also means that people who have uploaded images for this "official"
> Challenge will need to upload them again. o_O
>
I was afraid that would be necessary.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-6-2013 22:55, Samuel Benge wrote:
> I haven't been able to pull up the TINA CHeP forums in two days, or post
> anything for several. (I'm not intentionally ignoring my fellow 'cheppers!)
I don't know what is happening, but I have been unable to get at the
TC-RTC forums for quite some time now, and the main site of the forum is
also unresponsive, so I am unable to investigate the matter. From some
error messages I have got, I wonder if they have not a serious hacker
and/or spam problem.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-6-2013 21:20, Samuel Benge wrote:
> > Since springtime has come I've been hiking the hills. I just discovered that our
> > area produces opalescent quartz, some of it flawless (but very small). So I've
> > been searching for a good source, but the geology of our area has spread the
> > bedrock around quite a bit before actually pushing the stuff up to the surface.
> > The logging trails also confuse the matter.
>
> Interesting. Sources may be difficult to find as the geology in your
> area is rather complex. Stream beds may not be a bad place to look I
> guess, not like gold placers of course, but in areas were some pebble
> size sorting has been active.
Fortunately there is a creek below the area in question; unfortunately the creek
receives poor sunlight in the afternoons, and is possessed with killer
mosquitoes. Which of course won't be stopping me >:) I need to take a screen box
and gold pan down there and go collecting. Even though panning for quartz is
pretty much pointless, there might be other minerals of higher mass which can be
separated in that manner. The presence of granite pegmatite, gneiss, and mica
schist gives me hope :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> And a new version.
>
> Thomas
This is looking really good now, I especially like the addition of the trees in
the foreground, what did you use to create them?
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-6-2013 1:41, s.day wrote:
>
> This is looking really good now, I especially like the addition of the trees in
> the foreground, what did you use to create them?
>
Yes, the trees are the key elements. These are Xfrog objects, for free:
http://graphics.uni-konstanz.de/plantslib/
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-6-2013 20:07, Samuel Benge wrote:
> Fortunately there is a creek below the area in question; unfortunately the creek
> receives poor sunlight in the afternoons, and is possessed with killer
> mosquitoes. Which of course won't be stopping me >:)
I am sure you won't :-)
I need to take a screen box
> and gold pan down there and go collecting. Even though panning for quartz is
> pretty much pointless, there might be other minerals of higher mass which can be
> separated in that manner. The presence of granite pegmatite, gneiss, and mica
> schist gives me hope :)
Wish you luck.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicely done. Techniques?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-6-2013 19:53, Shay wrote:
> Nicely done. Techniques?
Thanks. Some explanation is indeed in order.
Height_fields:
The landscape is a GeoControl tga export, rendered as a function
height_field. To fill the gaps towards the horizon (and extend the
landscape) the height_field is mirrored and copied to right, back and left.
The foreground rock is a tiny part of another height_field that lies
hidden behind the camera.
Landscape textures:
A greyish gradient y pigment (limestone and shale) and a reddish
gradient y pigment (sandstone) are combined in a slope/altitude texture,
together with a couple of bluish green pigments to simulate vegetation
on the flatter (and lower) parts of the landscape. Not visible on this
version of the image (see coming up one) is a gradient y slope_map
normal added to the rocks, in order to simulate some additional rock
layering (as suggested by Sam). The foreground rock uses Sean Day's rock
texture with a green one for the base vegetation.
Vegetation:
200,000 trees are planted on the landscape using a macro that I adapted
from one by Kirk Andrews. It makes use of a virtual object (a flat
boxlike object in this instance, rotated with one edge towards the
camera) over the landscape. Random points ( VRand_In_Obj() ) in this
object are traced down towards the landscape and written to file after a
couple of tests, for instance the steepness of the slope, but also an
additional visibility test, using the Visibility Test macro by Gilles
Tran. The written location point are subsequently read for planting the
instances of one (1) tree (POV-Tree) which harbours a macro giving a
slight foliage texture variation for each tree.
The foreground trees are free ones made with Xfrog. The grass patches
(4000) are planted using the same technique as the landscape trees.
Eight different patches are randomly used. The patches came with Poser
7, iirc. As suggested by Sam, I added a background diffuse to the grass
(not in this image) but as the light comes from behind this is not going
to be too visible.
Haze and mist:
A general haze is obtained by the combination of two ground fogs, one
for near distance, the other for the far distance.
The ground mist is obtained by a media with boxed density_map using a
granite pattern.
Clouds:
Thanks to Zeger Knaepen's FastCloud macro.
Sky and Sun:
I used sunpos.inc for the Sun's position and CIE.inc for the Sun's
light. The sky_sphere makes use of the Sun's position too adapt the
horizon's color.
Victorian gentleman:
This is a simple Poser figure for which I made a frock coat and a top
hat in Silo 2. Gave him a cane too. Posed in Poser 8.
In order to find rapidly a correct position on the foreground rock, I
made use of Norbert Kern's Position Finder macro.
Birds:
Poser crows were randomly posed within a virtual object (VRand_In_Obj
once more) and translated to the correct position over the landscape.
I think I got everything.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The backgroud is really nice but the front need some improvements (grass
is dizzy...)
Good work tough :-)
Lightbeam
Le 02/06/2013 14:19, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> This one is about Deep Time, i.e. the ages needed for sedimentation -
> uplift - erosion.
>
> The Victorian gentleman, obviously is Charles Lyell.
>
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote in message
news:51b1926d$1@news.povray.org...
> On 5-6-2013 19:53, Shay wrote:
>> Nicely done. Techniques?
>
> Thanks. Some explanation is indeed in order.
>
Whoa. You weren't kidding when you said you've picked up a few things along
the way.
The picture looks good. I know you prefer to be left to your own creative
devices, but I'll offer that this might benefit from some more color.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-6-2013 0:02, Shay wrote:
> Whoa. You weren't kidding when you said you've picked up a few things
> along the way.
<grin> Most things just gather dust in a remote corner of the HD. I have
an ambivalent feeling about this. On the one hand, they are tools,
nicely developed by others, more often than not in ways I am unable to
do but which fit well in work I undertake. In that sense they enhance my
creativity and help to achieve my goals without hampering the process.
On the other hand, I feel much indebted to all the people who, over the
years, came up with smart ideas and were willing to share them. My work
is as much the result of their contributions as to my own doings,
sometimes maybe more so. Well, that is of course all right. When you
paint, you also use the canvas, the paint, and the brushes made by
others ;-) At least, I try as much as possible to give credit to
everybody who contributed one way or another to the process.
>
> The picture looks good. I know you prefer to be left to your own
> creative devices, but I'll offer that this might benefit from some more
> color.
I always accept hints ;-) What I do with them is another story.
I think you are right and I have had that same feeling for a couple of
days now. I believe this mostly has to do with the vegetation in the
valley which is a too uniform green soup. A bit boring indeed. I made
rocks peek through a bit more but that is clearly not enough. What is
needed is a wider range of greens in the trees and in the understory.
Spectacular would be an autumn scene, but that is not my intention here,
so I shall investigate more in the direction of pale yellow green and
darker shades.
As far as the rocks are concerned, I think they should remain as they
are, subdued shades of grey and browns.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-6-2013 21:47, Lightbeam wrote:
> The backgroud is really nice but the front need some improvements (grass
> is dizzy...)
> Good work tough :-)
>
Hey thanks, and good to see you here again. You commented on the very
first version; later in the thread, I posted a better image...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
