Worked on the background and also changed the clouds - as a result of 
this the coloring is also quite a bit different now - not sure if i like 
this better or not but decide for yourself...

Renders quite a bit faster BTW - 27 hours for 7070x5000 - that is only 
about 1-2 hours for screen size (without aa of course).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 03 May. 2005 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lotw_038_09a_1200.jpg' (281 KB)

Preview of image 'lotw_038_09a_1200.jpg'

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Worked on the background and also changed the clouds - as a result of 
> this the coloring is also quite a bit different now - not sure if i like 
> this better or not but decide for yourself...

Good job, Christoph! In my opinion this is _a lot_ better. Now the 
leftmost mountains in the background are bright enough to look 
realistic. Also their shape is better now. Not sure about the lightness 
of shadows in the far mountains. But probably they should be that light 
because of the haze...

Next it would be interesting to see the same scene in different 
lightings: sunset, overcast, mist, moonlight...

Post a reply to this message

Yes, this is much better in my opinion. All I wish to see is some cloud
shadows over parts of the landscape. There are all those puff-clouds up
there, But none of them seem to be anywhere near the sun (yes, rendering
media off-camera is a waste, but...)

Incredible work.

-s
5TF!

Post a reply to this message

Every time I begin to think I know what I am doing, I am humbled byt he work
of someone that has truly mastered POV-Ray.

I was in Sedona Arizona last year and this image vividly brought the trip
back to me.

Outstanding image.

Tim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:23:03 -0600, Christoph Hormann  
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

>
> Worked on the background and also changed the clouds - as a result of
> this the coloring is also quite a bit different now - not sure if i like
> this better or not but decide for yourself...
>
> Renders quite a bit faster BTW - 27 hours for 7070x5000 - that is only
> about 1-2 hours for screen size (without aa of course).
>

Looking good, but the clouds bother me. It is a scale issue, not enough  
fractal dimensions?

http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sky/sky-clouds-3wax.jpg

Lots more skys here
http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sky/

Post a reply to this message

Better mountains, worse clouds IMO. The cloud shapes don't look right. That
one right in the middle looks like it has a piece of cloud "hanging" off it.
Also, the thin layer of clouds might look better if it were scaled larger.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

In article <op.### [at] beastiemshomenet>, dan### [at] 3-enet says...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 06:23:03 -0600, Christoph Hormann  
> <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Worked on the background and also changed the clouds - as a result of
> > this the coloring is also quite a bit different now - not sure if i like
> > this better or not but decide for yourself...
> >
> > Renders quite a bit faster BTW - 27 hours for 7070x5000 - that is only
> > about 1-2 hours for screen size (without aa of course).
> >
> 
> Looking good, but the clouds bother me. It is a scale issue, not enough  
> fractal dimensions?
> 
> http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sky/sky-clouds-3wax.jpg
> 
> Lots more skys here
> http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sky/
> 
Yeah.. Its a bit odd. Like looking at a cutout of a real landscape, which 
someone then added the sky from a completely different image to.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Yeah.. Its a bit odd. Like looking at a cutout of a real landscape, which
> someone then added the sky from a completely different image to.

I felt exactly the same, without quite being able to put my finger on it. I
believe it has to do with 2 things :
- first, the clouds do not cast any shadows onto the landscape, thus
appearing **behind** the background mountains rather than **above** the
whole landscape. Given their size and shape, they seem to be fairly low in
the sky and should be casting shadows.
- then, their size and apparent height might be inconsistent with the height
of the mountains. Given the height of the peak on the right, i get the
impression that it should be surrounded by clouds.

In addition, i second the idea that the mountains in the background should
have darker shadows, not because they **are** darker, but rather because
they should **appear** darker by contrast with the strongly lit slopes. I
don't buy the idea of a distant haze, at least not with the sky as it is
now.

That being said, this picture is astounding! Great job!

JYR

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Worked on the background and also changed the clouds - as a result of 
> this the coloring is also quite a bit different now - not sure if i like 
> this better or not but decide for yourself...
> 
> Renders quite a bit faster BTW - 27 hours for 7070x5000 - that is only 
> about 1-2 hours for screen size (without aa of course).
> 
> Christoph

The distant hills -- Much better. I'm still not sure about the clouds. 
Maybe remove the low clouds, and leave the mid and high-level clouds.

-- 
~Mike

Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>Looking good, but the clouds bother me. It is a scale issue, not enough  
>>fractal dimensions?
>>
>>http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sky/sky-clouds-3wax.jpg

In case you have not read it in the previous thread - this is not the 
kind of cloud i am aiming at here.  Maybe i should have underlined this 
by making the clouds darker.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 03 May. 2005 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message