HOME | DD

tobaal In reply to ??? [2012-01-08 19:56:39 +0000 UTC]

so i have 2 versions. the scaled up version (2732x1536), and then the scaled up one with the hard shadows as well. i'm not sure which one to upload, and as you are the only one to show any interest in greater detail i'd like your opinion on which one to update with. if you wouldn't mind noting me your email, i can send you both versions so as i may get your opinion. no worries if you aren't comfortable with that, i know that some people don't give out their email. the hard shadow version won't be done for about an hour though, it's still plugging away.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-08 20:12:53 +0000 UTC]

is this in your gallery?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 02:38:00 +0000 UTC]

just wanted to let you know that i git the bigger version up. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 05:34:42 +0000 UTC]

I like it.. the other version panned out more right? more scene? this is cool thatthere is more definition (i think) inside the cavernous areas.. looks good.. i nthink you shoudl have both in your gallery.. is this with shadow?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 10:13:12 +0000 UTC]

same scene, something about the "hard shadows" makes it not look as field-like. idk. but yeah, this is shadowed. glad you like it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 17:16:08 +0000 UTC]

i know its the same picture, what I meant was.. did you pan in or crop it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 22:29:06 +0000 UTC]

sorry, what i meant was that is exactly the same image (no panning or cropping), i even double checked by overlaying the new and old versions in PS.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-08 20:25:52 +0000 UTC]

no, i re-rendered my 'oracle at r'lyeh' for your zoomabillity, and was going to update my gallery version. the one up now is 1/2 as wide and high as the version i'm rendering now and has no hard shadows. anyways, like i said, i re-rendered it bigger and am not sure which version i should use for the update (shadowed or not shadowed), and was looking for your opinion as you are the only one to show any interest in a bigger version.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 00:23:04 +0000 UTC]

I dont know.. i cant make those descisions for you, its your gallery, which looks better? quantitatively? Shadowed is probably more real looking more detail?.. but you got a daily deviation for the one you have.. Mb you put it in your scrapbook and link to it in your description. Or however thats done.. Ive seen people list hi-res links with thumbs in their descriptions before. If you want me to pick, I guess shadows

Im doin a picture right now.. its 120K pixels... is that 120 megapixels? 3200x2400 That one I said crashed my program was 4800x7200 1000ppi.. might be why it crashed the program.. Im new to all this. Im still not sure what "rendering" means and or entails

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 00:36:39 +0000 UTC]

i just wasn't sure which one i liked, and all my roommates are busy today so there's not anyone here to ask. figured i'd ask you since you showed interest.

but to answer your question a one-megapixel image is one million pixels, so 1000x1000 or some variant thereof. 3200x2400 is seven million six hundred eighty thousand pixels so it's a 7.68 megapixel image. (h*w/1,000,000=mp)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 04:27:02 +0000 UTC]

i guess id need to see em both.. real busy making this picture so dont mind my slow responses

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 04:38:26 +0000 UTC]

no worries, i understand, my internet takes a back seat to rendering, i'm just in between shadow layers right now, which is why i am able to respond.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 05:38:35 +0000 UTC]

rendering.. sounds fancy.. like you gotta shut all the lights off to conserve enough energy to accomplish the feat I just made my most complicated image to date.. nothing like what u do.. or maybe it is.. i dont know... curious about your shadow layers.. I just sample various areas create possitive and negative frames, add filters.. etc.. havent played with gradients or any of that stuff much.. made a solar system and tried gradients and shading layers where i tweaked shadows, but thats the extent of that.. and i found it confusing a bit.. maybe its me.. maybe its my program.. maybe i need to read some tutorials

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 10:10:27 +0000 UTC]

i usually keep the lights off anyways as i have a sensitivity to light. the program i use for producing my 3d fractals is called 'mandelbulb 3d'. it's THE coolest free program i've seen. [link] here is a link to the dl if you are interested.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 17:23:06 +0000 UTC]

Light sensitive? are you albino? I like my light outside too, and at that only venture out for necessities.. and occasionally to treat my mild psoriasis ^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 21:59:13 +0000 UTC]

lyme

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-09 17:21:39 +0000 UTC]

thanks.. Im gonna keep this in my Reply stack to explore later.. I dont know about capatability with my program and hardware/software so i gotta read.. my least favorite thing to do, next to socializing ^^... can you ease any of my concerns? Like I wonder if my computer can handle it and so on.. "Large renderings" does this require a super computer or will a "Staple's (office supply store)Special" do the trick.. I have a 1 terrabyte hard drive.. so my equipment is all that era hardware.. bought about 4 months ago

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to NIJMI3SKIJLL [2012-01-09 22:27:18 +0000 UTC]

i'm running it on an HP laptop with an I5 dual core, middle of the road Radeon graphics card, and 8 gigs of ram. but my last computer was a 2005 acer with one gig of ram and only the integrated graphics, and it ran it almost as well. the downfall is that it sucks up cpu so you can either set it to a lower priority in your task manager, or not be doing anything else. what i do personally is as i'm "exploring" the fractals i keep the image 683x384. only take like 1-5 minutes to render the new image. then for a final render i make it 5464x3072 and set the viewing ratio to 1:4 to make it look as nice as i can. then i wait and click render right before i go to sleep. oh, and if you're going to run it on a laptop, make sure you have good ventilation, id est, lift it in a way so that cool air may flow under it. bad venting can lead to overheating and pop your hdd or worse. pretty much any computer can run it, it all depends on how hard you are pushing your computer and how long you are willing to wait.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NIJMI3SKIJLL In reply to tobaal [2012-01-10 01:49:15 +0000 UTC]

cool, thats helpful.. I'll check my specs, Im sure Im good

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tobaal In reply to ??? [2012-01-08 06:00:26 +0000 UTC]

i'll go up one size so it'll be 67 megapixels, but still at 1:4 scale so to keep the crispness. should be done by tomorrow, as long as i happen to sleep tonight.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

neoshamballa In reply to ??? [2011-12-26 10:22:38 +0000 UTC]

WoW Excellent !

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to neoshamballa [2011-12-26 11:04:44 +0000 UTC]

thankx.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DorianoArt In reply to ??? [2011-12-26 10:02:32 +0000 UTC]

Very nice! also if I don't understand the title...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tobaal In reply to DorianoArt [2011-12-26 11:06:47 +0000 UTC]

thank you very much. the title is a twist on the oracle at delphi...........

👍: 0 ⏩: 0