"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4a150a08$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
> > Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> >> The primary colours are obvious - Hey I have three attractors, I'll
make
> >> them R, G, B !  The outcome is hardly pleasing though.
> >
> >   Yes, pure color components never look very pleasing to the eye. Even
if
> > you want to use red, green and blue, always mix a bit of the other
components
> > into them as well! Rather than pure red, use a red with a slightly
orange
> > tint in it. Rather than pure green, use a green with a slightly
yellowish
> > tint. And so on. When you mix a tiny bit of pastel tints into your
primary
> > colors, they immediately become more pleasing to the eye.

> What can I say? I suck at choosing colours...
>
> Show me a set of colours, and I'll tell you whether it looks good or
> not. Show me a blank screen, and buggered if I can think of a set of
> colours that might look good.

If that's the case, easy:

1. Pick a random colour.
2. Pick another random (*) colour, place it beside the first (using a couple
of different patterns).
3. Remove the last colour and goto 2 if the combination doesn't look good.
4. Goto 2 until you have enough number of distinct colours.

Do this a few times, and you will eventually be able to remove the random
selection by intuition/heuristics.

(*) Random is the key. Novices tend to be bad at being able to chose random
colours, and will almost always pick fully saturated colours. Best is to
code a test program.

> (I have the exact same problem with writing music, by the way. Show me a
> piece of music, and I can tell you exactly why it's cool. But given a
> blank score, I can't write something that sounds cool.)

Unfortunately, above algorithm doesn't work for music.

Post a reply to this message