On 27-2-2012 6:33, Norbert Kern wrote:
> I use xfrog plants most of the time. Some of them are free like the big tree
> (http://www.wallis-eck.de/2009/?p=463) or the shrub
> (http://graphics.uni-konstanz.de/plantslib/).
>
Thank you for the sites.

There is also: http://xfrog.com/130-free-xfrogplants-now-available/

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> There is also: http://xfrog.com/130-free-xfrogplants-now-available/
>
> Thomas

Thanks for the link, Thomas.

Back in 2005 I invested a large amount of money in xfrog libraries.
Now I feel that lighting, perspective and general composition are much more
important than anything else.
Furthermore nature generates specific patterns for plant communities, which are
not random.
If you have generated a good vegetation pattern, you need only a small number of
different meshes.
Therefore I will concentrate on my old vegetation simulation approach. Up to now
I haven't found another really convincing solution on that topic yet.

Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >Norbert Kern  on date 26/02/2012 16:34 wrote:
> > My six years old daughter ordered an image with flowers, clouds, a cat and a
> > tree...
> >
> Thank you and many thanks to your daughter too: it's a beautiful scene!
> ;-)
> Paolo

Thank you.

In fact to align and to displace the glows along a spline demanded most of the
time.
Other things are quite easy - strong colors, light fom back or side and a bit
work on perspective.

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

On 27-2-2012 20:05, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Back in 2005 I invested a large amount of money in xfrog libraries.
> Now I feel that lighting, perspective and general composition are much more
> important than anything else.
> Furthermore nature generates specific patterns for plant communities, which are
> not random.
> If you have generated a good vegetation pattern, you need only a small number of
> different meshes.

I totally agree. For instance, two or three different trees are enough 
to create a forest.

> Therefore I will concentrate on my old vegetation simulation approach. Up to now
> I haven't found another really convincing solution on that topic yet.

Good work. What I appreciate in this image is the subtle philosophy 
enclosed. And the butterfly of course ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Hi Norbert:

   That's a really beautiful scene... and I'm immune to the 
"adorable-kitten" effect, so I think I can judge impartially. ;)

   Welcome back! ...now to see if I can make my nth comeback too. :(

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Hi Norbert:
>
>    That's a really beautiful scene... and I'm immune to the
> "adorable-kitten" effect, so I think I can judge impartially. ;)
>
>    Welcome back! ...now to see if I can make my nth comeback too. :(


Jaime - you were never really away compared to Gilles Tran, Nathan o'Brian,
Christoph Hormann, Gena Obukhov or Mick Hazelgrove. I followed your website
every month in the last years and I'm really impressed by your progress towards
reality, especially in your stone desert, sand or grass images.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 27-2-2012 20:05, Norbert Kern wrote:
> > Back in 2005 I invested a large amount of money in xfrog libraries.
> > Now I feel that lighting, perspective and general composition are much more
> > important than anything else.
> > Furthermore nature generates specific patterns for plant communities, which are
> > not random.
> > If you have generated a good vegetation pattern, you need only a small number of
> > different meshes.
>
> I totally agree. For instance, two or three different trees are enough
> to create a forest.
>
> > Therefore I will concentrate on my old vegetation simulation approach. Up to now
> > I haven't found another really convincing solution on that topic yet.
>
> Good work. What I appreciate in this image is the subtle philosophy
> enclosed. And the butterfly of course ;-)
>
> Thomas

The butterfly is the "bad guy" causing the malfunction, but I didn't had in mind
the famous "butterfly effect" - it's more a bit of humor.
In fact there is much more "philosophy" in my underwater image. I've learned
from philosophy, that there is no reality, if you really search for a certain
core. You can even question the approach taken by Descartes.
In the end all these little philosophic games are only "mindfuck" - only a
ladder, which has to be thrown away after using it, as Wittgenstein said.

But even if you have experienced the reality behind the curtain of the socalled
"reality", you have to live with it.
Then it is perfectly possible to make 3D images for your own pleasance.

Post a reply to this message