 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> wrote:
> Keep up the good work, guys!! And keep us informed! When you are done, I/we
> would certainly much appreciate some kind of tutorial to make all our
> outdoor scenes better!!!
>
> Thomas
I can't imagine I can do something you can't Thomas :o)! Seeing your latest
scenes and your latest entries, you are at pre-guru state and speeding very
fast!! YOU could tell us so much! But if this study leads me (or us, Jim and
I, if we can share and dig) to something reasonably usable and
determinitstic, I will be proud of telling the way I proceed. As I already
told here, I try to imitate nature.
To be honest, I have a wider goal, but it is too early now.
Attached: a dense cloud cover with 5 degrees sun elevation.
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cloud_cover_8.jpg' (26 KB)
Preview of image 'cloud_cover_8.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote in message
news:web.466d3d0c43579e8de8ba46670@news.povray.org...
> Here are two versions of the same scene, with different elevation and
> settings. Both use radiosity, and have a sun aperture twice the real one
> (1
> deg instead of 0.5). For the first image, the elevation was 5 degrees, the
> second was 2.5 and You can notice that some sampling artifacts begin to
> show in the latter (some kind of horizontal bandings).
Wow .... I like the first image! I think you've mastered the dark clouds.
Very nice! Last evening we had a rather nice sunset here and I sat out on
the deck and admired it for as long as it lasted. I think I'll need a few
more tweeks to get the effect you've achieved. I'm in the process of
incorprating the radiosity settings that I used in the courtyard scene I did
some months ago. Perhaps I'll let it run overnight and dare anyone to go
near the computer ..... yikes Bruno you've raised the bar .... nice work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> schreef in bericht
news:web.466d742a43579e8de8ba46670@news.povray.org...
>
> I can't imagine I can do something you can't Thomas :o)! Seeing your
> latest
> scenes and your latest entries, you are at pre-guru state and speeding
> very
> fast!! YOU could tell us so much!
Thanks Bruno, but I disagree :-)
I am fairly good at a couple of things, but there are vast territories that
I find very difficult and this is one of them. I have been playing awhile
with Abe's code (in 2006 I think) which addressed essentially the same
question, but I think that you are already farther in the development.
But if this study leads me (or us, Jim and
> I, if we can share and dig) to something reasonably usable and
> determinitstic, I will be proud of telling the way I proceed. As I already
> told here, I try to imitate nature.
I follow the thread with great attention!!
> To be honest, I have a wider goal, but it is too early now.
<grin> Of course! I could tell!! :-)
>
> Attached: a dense cloud cover with 5 degrees sun elevation.
Looks very natural!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's what I've got so far .....
3 layers concentric sphere's gradiant sky_sphere as outer most layer. By far
Bruno has done a MUCH better job. I wondering if the approach of looking
east at sunset is my problem. The darker clouds are supposed to give the
clouds a look of depth ..... still my setup tends to look more like a
painting than realistic. A little more thought into my setup seems to be in
order. I seem to have a fairly tight and low camera angle on my terrain, and
I'm noticing the curve of my "sky dome". Anything special about your camera
setup?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'scratch1.jpg' (15 KB)
Preview of image 'scratch1.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Here's what I've got so far .....
>
> 3 layers concentric sphere's gradiant sky_sphere as outer most layer. By far
> Bruno has done a MUCH better job. I wondering if the approach of looking
> east at sunset is my problem. The darker clouds are supposed to give the
> clouds a look of depth ..... still my setup tends to look more like a
> painting than realistic. A little more thought into my setup seems to be in
> order. I seem to have a fairly tight and low camera angle on my terrain, and
> I'm noticing the curve of my "sky dome". Anything special about your camera
> setup?
>
> Jim
I fear that they would both distract from the rest of the scene. That is,
you
Is that the moon? If so, is the phase right or is it just a marker for
interest?
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>
> > Only one criticism... not big enough to swipe and use for wallpaper ;-)
> >
>
> Next one will be 1024*768, promess...
>
Hello Mike.
The 1024*768 image I promessed is currently rendering. I made it good
quality (I hope!!!) and it will be ready tomorrow morning (it's 14:36 in
France).
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
news:web.466e8ea143579e8dc4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
> I've seen skies like that and I like your image. I must say that I like
> Bruno's as well. Both of the methods give very desirable results, although
two simular but slightly different approaches .... kind of funny
(coincidence) that we both were working on skies at the same time. Thats why
I joined in on this thread. This is a pretty good group of folks and it's
nice to be able to bounce ideas and techniques around. I really respect the
talents and approaches of some of the folks here .... math, logic .... etc.
I'm kind of a trial and error guy, so I'm constantly blown away at some of
the stuff I seen over the past couple of years.
> I fear that they would both distract from the rest of the scene. That is,
> you wouldn't want to use them where they weren't the focal point of the
> image.
hmmmm .... I guess I see your point. I think I've always seen the sky as
dressing around the scene. I'm working on shore grass, a fishing dory and
some other ground cover for this scene.
> Is that the moon? If so, is the phase right or is it just a marker for
> interest?
>
yep .... it's the moon although a rough draft version. I have a shooting
star that I used Nathan Kopp's Lens Flare include to put a sparkle on the
head of the star trail .... that's a work in progress too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
> I forgot to say that I cannot figure out how an entire skyscape could be
> obtained with DF3 files. But I know so little and can't compete with most
> of you here ...
>
> Bruno
Don't know about entire skyscape, but this certainly makes nice clouds:
http://www.oyonale.com/ressources/english/sources13.htm
wonderful images by the way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
> > "Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> >
> > > Only one criticism... not big enough to swipe and use for wallpaper ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Next one will be 1024*768, promess...
> >
>
> Hello Mike.
>
> The 1024*768 image I promessed is currently rendering. I made it good
> quality (I hope!!!) and it will be ready tomorrow morning (it's 14:36 in
> France).
>
> Bruno
It's me again, Mike. The image rendered ugly ... I am trying something else
....
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:24:07 -0300, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>
>"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote in message
>news:web.466e8ea143579e8dc4e49fa40@news.povray.org...
>> I've seen skies like that and I like your image. I must say that I like
>> Bruno's as well. Both of the methods give very desirable results, although
>
>two simular but slightly different approaches .... kind of funny
>(coincidence) that we both were working on skies at the same time.
When you think of the number of skys people render it's not really surprising
:-)
> This is a pretty good group of folks and it's
>nice to be able to bounce ideas and techniques around. I really respect the
>talents and approaches of some of the folks here .... math, logic .... etc.
Your right tho' the folk here are ok.
>I'm kind of a trial and error guy, so I'm constantly blown away at some of
>the stuff I seen over the past couple of years.
Me too, if it looks ok, then it will do for me :-)
>> I fear that they would both distract from the rest of the scene. That is,
>> you wouldn't want to use them where they weren't the focal point of the
>> image.
>
>hmmmm .... I guess I see your point. I think I've always seen the sky as
>dressing around the scene. I'm working on shore grass, a fishing dory and
>some other ground cover for this scene.
It was meant as a compliment, it's eye catching.
>> Is that the moon? If so, is the phase right or is it just a marker for
>> interest?
>>
> yep .... it's the moon although a rough draft version. I have a shooting
>star that I used Nathan Kopp's Lens Flare include to put a sparkle on the
>head of the star trail .... that's a work in progress too.
I look forward to seeing it.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
