=====
From prizog@hotmail.com:
suggestion:
height_field {
...


// IMPORTANT:
smooth
}

=====
From jerry@hoboes.com:
The iceberg is way blocky. Did you antialias this image? The ocean surface is
too 'square' as well--although the sky looks nice and smooth.
=====
From Sean_Hamilton@amrcorp.com:
I like the message portrayed and the contrasts between above and below water.  But the fractal
look of the iceberg above water is really distracting.  Also the water's surface
looks jagged. Perhaps more antialiasing is needed?

=====
From amason@cs.uct.ac.za:
composition is a bit flat; no foreground interest.
aliasing on water is disturbing - use some antialiasing next time ;)
like the sky, iceberg  and the colour of the sea
bubbles show motion of sub quite well.
water is a bit flat

=====
From justin@scpmcs.org:
While it is an interesting picture, there is far too much pixelation
in the water and iceberg.

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
Quite nice idea, but the aliasing artifacts, especially on the water surface
are a bit annoying. Quite nice job on the iceberg, but some of the faces appear
still too big.

=====
From johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu:
Textures are too pixelated, making image look somewhat crude.

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Strange view, but interesting. The sky looks nice. The iceberg, you know,
needs more triangles (I know what a pain is to show a near mountain/iceberg:)

=====
From djohnston@iname.com:
A nice sky, but the scene seems too empty. Some birds might liven it up.
Speaking of birds, some penguins on the berg would be a funny addition. :)
The water seems to be a little too refelctive on the top, but the underwater
looks good.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Interesting "cutaway" viewpoint into the water.  I like this better than a "camera at the water surface"-view because you get to see the surface of the water and its reflections, which is more interesting than a simple upper-half / lower-half image.
The polygon-effect in the iceberg is very UNrealistic, but gives an interesting style to the image nevertheless.

=====
From chipr@niestu.com:
Excellent use of POV--I thought it must be a Bryce height-field, and was
totally impressed to learn its origin.


=====
From r@spider-th084.proxy.aol.com:
Great berg, solid, quite beatiful image, sub is a bother


=====
From r@tk156239.telekabel.at:
Not bad, but you should use the 'smooth' option for hiegh fields and antialiasing next time.