|
 |
Shay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] aol com> wrote in message
> news:3f2f0ac2@news.povray.org...
> | <snip>
> | -Jim
> |
>
> Jim, if I ever write a book, you've *got* to write the description on
> the back cover!
Hee hee! Nice to be appreciated, look forward to reading the book.
>
space in the scene. The weakest element? Obviously the ground, which I
> gather from the text file was the one element *not* designed by the
> artist, but rather found (on the internet?) and mapped on.
>
Yes, he has an interesting problem here, which comes up time and again
in raytracings. The ground seems to be an attempt to create the
raytracing equivalent of 'neutral'. Yet a truly neutral ground breaks
with the convention that a raytracing be a 'scene'. So he seemed forced
to provide a ground that was tactile and not overwhelmed by the
figure/subject. Meanwhile, the point of view of the observer is
privileged, a kind of hovering x-ray vision. Privileged view point is
one of the hallmarks of raytracing, yet a truly
neutral ground is scorned. I hesitate to second guess peoples' work but
here I can't help but wonder how the picture would have worked if the
ground had been chosen to acknowledge the privileged view of the camera
more. For instance how would the picture change if the ground simulated
a piece of graph paper?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
