"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> Reminds me of a Blake's 7 episode, Shadow.
>
> To comment on the image: it's strange seeing grass grow from a
> reflective plane, but I like the effect :p

I tried to find whatever Blake 7 thing it is the picture reminds you of but
had no luck.  I like graphics where there is something subtle but obviously
(if that makes sense) "wrong" or "strange", and I'm dead chuffed you like
the effect I've used here.  Thanks for the comment.  :D



"Bob H" <omniverse@charter%net> wrote:
> A great start going with a macro already. I guess some people like me still
> don't take advantage of that in POV as much as should be, since it's
> something fairly new that came along after so many version changes.

I didn't realise this was a fairly new feature.  I thought constructing
macros was a good place to start learning to pov given that I used to be a
developer, and whatever I write can be used in future pictures if they're
reusable enough.


> I wasn't sure what this plant is (nor what most anything is) so I did a
> google image search for it. Pictures almost always show longer "foxtails"
> than yours here. Maybe they're different in different places or times of
> year?

I grew up in the Scottish countryside and this grass grows everywhere there.
 It's THE plant which makes me think of summer which is why I wanted to
model it.  I sent a copy of the picture to my father as he's clued up on
botany and nature in general and he said the same thing about the foxtails.
 I thought the same thing too, but what bothers me is that the botany site I
used as reference says they are between 5-8cm long which is exactly the
range I've used.  Last night I spent a few hours reconstructing the foxtail
to make it *appear* longer but can do no more.  So when the Meadow Foxtail
grows again I intend to check the length myself, and change it if
necessary.  My other option is to reduce the range to something line 7-8cm.
 If that doesn't help though I'm going to be at a loss whether to
inaccurately lengthen them for appearence or not.  :-/


> Only thing I was going to suggest is maybe using a green to yellow variation
> for the stalks, and the pictures I saw show that's possible in the actual
> plants. Probably something again that varies with particular varieties and
> times of year, just that plain green doesn't seem as true to life when
> rendering a plant.

Again I agree with you, but again I'm going to wait until it grows so I can
check the colour variations in detail!


> Looks like you used a light directly above the plant that makes most of the
> tops dark. Not sure if that was your intention but guessing you tried to
> show both lit and unlit sides. The lack of shadows on the ground (or water)
> is interesting.

Not being used to 3d rendering I used a typical (and very basic) lighting
setup in my closeup natural photography.  The main light is coming from the
left-rear, while a weaker light from the right-rear fills in the shadows
while retaining the texture.  At least that's the plan!  The difference in
lighting with the tops is because each foxtail is covered in about 100
(give or take) tiny cylinders at an angle (with a slight randomness).  I'm
not convinced its 100% accurate but I thought it gave a good idea to the
feel of the real plant.


> Oh, and welcome to the newsgroups and your new hobby! You're off to a
> fantastic start-- even if you didn't post a reflective sphere over checkered
> plane per tradition (I didn't either).

Thank you loads for the comments, and I do appreciate that you've taken the
trouble to look for pictures of the real plant.  I'm off to have a go at
that great idea of an image you've suggested!  ;-)

Post a reply to this message