I saw this massive outpouring here and couldn't refrain from entering
yet another reply. In fact, this thread could become one of the several
fastest growing, largest and off-topic ones. So get your stats ready,
Lance.
I've become a stranger to the IMP, I feel, because of just this sort of
flip-flop about what kind of thing it is meant to be.
I lean toward the realism, and yet can't see that as being purely taken
as the goal for such an endeavor.
I fight with myself all the time about this stuff and can't see haggling
with others over it because I'm not about to pressure my side into it.
The IMP does have quite a bit going for it in the realism department,
judging by the standards being drawn out and what can be acheived versus
what can't. Like I say though, I hate to frustrate myself over this, let
alone others.
The cummulative IMP result certainly should be of somewhat homogeneous
order in any case, don't you think?
Hopefully I'll find a niche there again (and again) over time.

P.S. for obvious reasons I'm not going to email this into the IMP list,
don't want to make waves either ;)


Ken wrote:
> 
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> 
> > I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
> > ;-)
> > The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
> > same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
> > getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
> > movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
> > darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
> > go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
> > for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
> > actually orange in stead of pale).
> > I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
> > look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
> > do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
> > know where it comes from  ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Remco
> 
> I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
> movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
> the most part faithfull to reality.
>   I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
> I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
> noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
> planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
> site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
> super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
> look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
> one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
>   If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
> is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
> is needed.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message