 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
Wow, such a vast improvement over the previous version; this is looking really
great!
Your backyard is almost like the inverse of mine - I live at the top and look
down the mountain... say, that's a fun project idea, everyone render your own
backyards over the holidays!
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/23/2013 02:58 AM, jhu wrote:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
>
Like this second one quite a lot. Very good grass.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I always find making a good looking outdoor image difficult, especially when
> beginning. Often it's fairly discouraging, and I just give up. For this example,
> I saw this neat looking grassy valley which some trees that's somewhat foggy.
> Here's the best I could do after several iterations. Additionally, it took 12GiB
> of memory and 45 minutes to render. Fortunately my computer has plenty of RAM.
> Pretty awful, eh?
>
Did you use a hight_field for those hills? If so, at what resolution?
Some times, using an equivalent isosurface can save you from using all
that memory and may actualy be almost as fast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <kua### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> > I always find making a good looking outdoor image difficult, especially when
> > beginning. Often it's fairly discouraging, and I just give up. For this example,
> > I saw this neat looking grassy valley which some trees that's somewhat foggy.
> > Here's the best I could do after several iterations. Additionally, it took 12GiB
> > of memory and 45 minutes to render. Fortunately my computer has plenty of RAM.
> > Pretty awful, eh?
> >
>
> Did you use a hight_field for those hills? If so, at what resolution?
> Some times, using an equivalent isosurface can save you from using all
> that memory and may actualy be almost as fast.
Same hill in both pictures. The code is practically identical in both images.
The second one just has different grass, trees, and our lost cat... (with focal
blur, radiosity, and area light).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>jhu on date 23/12/2013 8.58 wrote:
> So, then I looked out my window and decided to go in a different direction
> instead: daytime without fog and mostly blue sky with a slightly different
> scale. After a few iterations (and my lost cat), I came up with this, which is a
> fairly good representation of what my backyard looks like. This uses 1.7 GiB of
> memory and took 12.75 hours.
>
It's a really nice image, especially the grass.
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
