 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 20:04, Samuel Benge wrote:
> I like the premise! My rock hammer's an Estwing, so you can bet I'd be sore if I
> lost it while out mineral hunting. The guy in your image could very well be me
> (except for the fact that I always double-or-triple-check my pack before moving
> on). The man in your image really should have a pack, BTW.
Great minds think alike ;-) My hammer is also an Estwing, and been with
me for the last 50 years. Never lost it happily. It now gets a bit rusty
in places... I am now modelling it for the scene; first a low detail
version, but I intend to make a high resolution one later on for a
projected close up of sorts. The least I can do for its faithful
services :-)
Indeed, the guy could also be me in fact. The pack is a good idea. I
shall work on that too.
> I agree with Paolo that there is something amiss with the boulder. To me it
> seems a bit out of place... but of course getting loose rocks to match the
> landscape has always been a problem, IME.
Yes, absolutely. I fact I had already decided to throw it out and
replace it with something better integrated in the scene.
>
>> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
>
> Could be much better, though. Are you using radiosity? If so, you can actually
> get away with a count of 1, provided your surfaces are sufficiently detailed.
> I'll try to post something to the TINA CHeP EOG thread later today to show you
> what I mean.
I am curious to see what you mean. I am indeed using radiosity. The
isosurface max_gradient is pretty low, much lower than recommended by
POV but giving the details I intend to get. With a lower count, I may
need to increase the max_gradient though.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 17:48, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> The texture of the rocks is very nice, like in a painting.
> Imho the boulder is a bit strange.
Yes, I fully agree. I am going to throw it out and put something else there.
> Nevertheless a great scene!
Thanks Paolo!
Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
natural history musea.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 09/07/2013 9.16 wrote:
> Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
> the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
> captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
> surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
> natural history musea.
Thank you for the suggestion: I will update the image!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some changes.
- Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
- increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
- switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
longer.
This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_07.jpg' (252 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_07.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue sky to
improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2013 15:55, s.day wrote:
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue
sky to
> improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
> would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
I knew already that you would say this ;-)
I was not too happy with that media which did not add much to the scene.
However, I might work on a small dust cloud generated by the wind.
Also, to give credit where credit is due: Scott's Skysim is used in
combination with CIE.inc for the sunlight.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 10/07/2013 13.08 wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
>
Very good!
But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2013 16:49, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Very good!
> But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
For the time being, it is really lost. The good news is that it is being
modelled and will soon appear in the scene.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Great minds think alike ;-) My hammer is also an Estwing, and been with
> me for the last 50 years. Never lost it happily. It now gets a bit rusty
> in places... I am now modelling it for the scene; first a low detail
> version, but I intend to make a high resolution one later on for a
> projected close up of sorts. The least I can do for its faithful
> services :-)
Good brand! I've had mine for about 14 years or so now, and it's badly in need
of a second sharpening already. (The ground doesn't dig itself... well sometimes
it does.) I'm looking forward to seeing your model when you finish it!
> I am curious to see what you mean. I am indeed using radiosity. The
> isosurface max_gradient is pretty low, much lower than recommended by
> POV but giving the details I intend to get. With a lower count, I may
> need to increase the max_gradient though.
I'm not sure increasing the max_gradient is necessary, as all that does is fill
in the holes. If anything, you may need to lower the isosurface's accuracy if
you intend to lower the radiosity's count.
One of my isosurface tests has been posted to the TC-EOG-RTC thread:
http://tinachepforum.forumup.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3636&mforum=tinachepforum#3636
That image rendered in 5 minutes 39 seconds, which isn't too bad, all things
considered.
Here's the scene's radiosity block:
radiosity{
count 1
error_bound .1
recursion_limit 1
nearest_count 1
normal on
}
some isosurface settings:
accuracy 0.001
max_gradient 10
and the command line parameters:
+fn +f +a0.3 +am2 +r2 +j0.2
I can post the entire source (with include files) if needed.
An important thing to keep in mind is to always have enough small details on
your surfaces by using things like surface normals and/or and low isosurface
accuracies. Low aa settings help a great deal as far as speeding things up as
well.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-7-2013 0:57, Samuel Benge wrote:
> Good brand! I've had mine for about 14 years or so now, and it's badly in need
> of a second sharpening already. (The ground doesn't dig itself... well sometimes
> it does.) I'm looking forward to seeing your model when you finish it!
Do you have the pick or shovel model? Mine is a pick model and the point
is fairly rounded now although still able to neatly insert itself in
crevices. The head part is now badly chipped in places but I love it
that way; showing its age and wear & tear ;-) The leather handle is
fairly roughened now. In dry environments it needs a bath from time to
time when the leather rings dry out and contract. Oh well... a bit of
nostalgic talking, don't I? I am not going much places anymore these days...
The hammer model is progressing smoothly.
> I'm not sure increasing the max_gradient is necessary, as all that does is fill
> in the holes. If anything, you may need to lower the isosurface's accuracy if
> you intend to lower the radiosity's count.
I am indeed also using a max_gradient of 10 in my scene. THe accuracy
presently is 0. As radiosity count I use the adaptive method, presently
50, 1000. I generally leave it at that, but I probably can lower the
lower end more. I shall test that.
>
> One of my isosurface tests has been posted to the TC-EOG-RTC thread:
>
> http://tinachepforum.forumup.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3636&mforum=tinachepforum#3636
>
> That image rendered in 5 minutes 39 seconds, which isn't too bad, all things
> considered.
Yes, that is very fast.
> An important thing to keep in mind is to always have enough small details on
> your surfaces by using things like surface normals and/or and low isosurface
> accuracies. Low aa settings help a great deal as far as speeding things up as
> well.
Yep.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
