Most of the time I just model everything that's going to be in the scene,
but if there isn't going to be anything of much interest beyond a certain
point I just put everything inside a reflective sphere.
--
 camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0
rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1 rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}}
finish{ambient 1}} #declare c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}  merge{object{c
translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
//Mahalis
--

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>

Post a reply to this message