 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ger Remmers <No.### [at] Thank Youcomorgnet> wrote:
> On 12/23/2013 01:58 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.
> >
> The first one looks like a novice has run into a few interesting macros
> creating a plastic looking hillside.
> This one looks like a real life image. And if that's your backyard, I
> don't want to mow your grass.
We pay people to mow the grass, which would otherwise pose a fire hazard. As you
would expect, fire insurance is rather high here...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.12.2013 08:58, schrieb jhu:
> 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.........!!!
It`s just wonderful.Your grass is fascinating..the color, the light.
Must be wonderful to live there. It`s just the contrary to my home.
Absolutely my style......
Andrea
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Friedrich_Lohm=FCller?= <Fri### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> Am 23.12.2013 08:58, schrieb jhu:
> > 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.........!!!
> It`s just wonderful.Your grass is fascinating..the color, the light.
> Must be wonderful to live there. It`s just the contrary to my home.
> Absolutely my style......
> Andrea
Thanks! It's nice here. There are some issues though. For example we're on a
shared well that contains 25 ppb arsenic, which is below the old state standard
of 50 ppb. But it's now above the new state standard of 10 ppb. OTOH, there's no
evidence for health effects below 100 ppb. We also sometimes run out of water if
people forget to turn off their watering systems (ours have been off since
summer, so most of our non-succulents are dead). But, it's still better than
being plugged into the local water system. I hear my colleagues are paying
$500+/month to the water company! Absolutely ridiculous!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> I often do two things in landscapes:
> (1) I only plant 'grass' in the front half of the scene and use an
> adequate texture for the background; alternatively, using Rune's grass
> macro which is very fast and memory sober. (2) For simulating greater
> distances, I scale the grass (and trees) gradually down with distance
> from the camera. This optical illusion results in the perception of a
> larger/wider landscape.
You... you cheater! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-12-2013 23:27, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> You... you cheater! ;-)
LOL
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] videotronca> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
