 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/03/2013 02:03 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Indeed. However, I read somewhere that with distance from the viewer the
> colour becomes more yellowish
> http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/?quid=1271
>
> In the image, I think I am going to use a more bluish hue.
>
> Thomas
>
An incentive maybe?
--
Cheers
Ger
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sparky-005 (100 lights).jpg' (60 KB)
Preview of image 'sparky-005 (100 lights).jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-9-2013 11:23, Ger wrote:
> An incentive maybe?
>
Yes, that is a nice one indeed. Maybe a bit too blue for my intentions.
Some nights ago during a thunder storm, I noted how the surroundings
lighted up in a very pale 'electric' bluish manner, paler even than in
your image.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is to be the last version for now. A couple of things could still
be done but I am tired of this scene so... in five years time I /may/
revisit again :-)
This was a long render, especially the bottom half. I cut the scene up
so I don't know what the real render time would have been, but probably
between 24 and 48 hours with 6 threads active. The ferns were the main
culprits for this, in combination with the focal blur.
The compositing of the different sections may not be entirely perfect
but I am satisfied for now.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'aftermath_12.jpg' (129 KB)
Preview of image 'aftermath_12.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> This is to be the last version for now. A couple of things could still
> be done but I am tired of this scene so... in five years time I /may/
> revisit again :-)
>
> This was a long render, especially the bottom half. I cut the scene up
> so I don't know what the real render time would have been, but probably
> between 24 and 48 hours with 6 threads active. The ferns were the main
> culprits for this, in combination with the focal blur.
>
> The compositing of the different sections may not be entirely perfect
> but I am satisfied for now.
>
> Thomas
This looks great with the depth of field Thomas, I really like this version
:)
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/22/2013 04:13 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is to be the last version for now. A couple of things could still
> be done but I am tired of this scene so... in five years time I /may/
> revisit again :-)
>
> This was a long render, especially the bottom half. I cut the scene up
> so I don't know what the real render time would have been, but probably
> between 24 and 48 hours with 6 threads active. The ferns were the main
> culprits for this, in combination with the focal blur.
>
> The compositing of the different sections may not be entirely perfect
> but I am satisfied for now.
>
> Thomas
I like it and I've enjoyed following the ideas and development in the
newsgroup. Perhaps when you are re-working this in 5 years, I'll have
crawled to the point of trying a scene with so many complex elements...
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2013 3:56, William F Pokorny wrote:
> I like it and I've enjoyed following the ideas and development in the
> newsgroup. Perhaps when you are re-working this in 5 years, I'll have
> crawled to the point of trying a scene with so many complex elements...
Thanks indeed Bill. More praise than I merit, imo. There are a couple of
flaws still there, too painful to my eyes. ;-)
I certainly hope to see you /crawling/ faster than that ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-9-2013 17:28, Robert McGregor wrote:
> This looks great with the depth of field Thomas, I really like this version
> :)
Thanks indeed Robert. I am always a bit wary of DoF because of the
render time, but it certainly adds a nice touch to a scene. I should use
it more, especially as I like to use Edouard Poor's Camera35mm macros.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 22/09/2013 10.13 wrote:
> This is to be the last version for now. A couple of things could still
> be done but I am tired of this scene so... in five years time I /may/
> revisit again :-)
>
> This was a long render, especially the bottom half. I cut the scene up
> so I don't know what the real render time would have been, but probably
> between 24 and 48 hours with 6 threads active. The ferns were the main
> culprits for this, in combination with the focal blur.
>
> The compositing of the different sections may not be entirely perfect
> but I am satisfied for now.
>
> Thomas
The overall light is very nice, the scene is more realistic imho.
Perhaps I find something that disturbs in the lightning (shouldn't it be
full of thinner branches near to the terrain? or perhaps it is too
sharp, it misses some halo?).
A great image.
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> This is to be the last version for now. A couple of things could still
> be done but I am tired of this scene so... in five years time I /may/
> revisit again :-)
>
> This was a long render, especially the bottom half. I cut the scene up
> so I don't know what the real render time would have been, but probably
> between 24 and 48 hours with 6 threads active. The ferns were the main
> culprits for this, in combination with the focal blur.
>
> The compositing of the different sections may not be entirely perfect
> but I am satisfied for now.
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
The best one yet I think, the DOF is worth the wait IMO.
I think I preferred the lightning on the previous version (thinner lines and
more forks) but other than that this is better in every way.
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2013 11:20, s.day wrote:
> The best one yet I think, the DOF is worth the wait IMO.
Thanks and yes, absolutely.
>
> I think I preferred the lightning on the previous version (thinner lines and
> more forks) but other than that this is better in every way.
Thickness could be less indeed, although it is determined by the
distance, i.e. when the lines break down. However, with -a and DoF I
could make it thinner a bit more. I am not satisfied entirely either
with the forking.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
