|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dearmad" <dea### [at] qwestnet> schreef
> HEHE! Something jsut struck me as funny:
>
> We're making computer generated images and we're
> claiming to do them: "By hand." I understand what we
> mean and support the criterion as an idea, but to an
> outsider they would just shake their heads.
>
> By hand... ;o)
lol you're right that is funny :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No .. In fact, I'd like to share something also .... I've just started using
Moray 3.3 and
what I miss from POV-Ray is the ability to pass parameters to your objects
....
Moray leaves you with cylinders and spheres that are placed in location like
x = 3.232345 y = 2.4356322 z = 7.342345 which is useless if you want to
"pop" the code
into the POV- Ray editor and start programming your CSG's.
but it is still a nice product!
-Ed
Zero <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:3b420153@news.povray.org...
> I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
> observation to share. I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
> the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being
pushed
> aside by more complex modelling techniques. Which of course means the
> modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds
max
> and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
> spatch, ...) to make a complete scene. Where are the days when all you
> needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to
create
> CSG objects? Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use
NURBS
> or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel. Anyone else have a different view on
this?
>
> Zero
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zero wrote:
> Where are the days when all you needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good
> insight in 3d space to create CSG objects? Now it seems even for the simplest
> scene you have to use NURBS or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel. Anyone else have a different view on this?
Not so different... My own take on this subject is that we've become more
demanding in term of visual quality and complexity. CSG based on the classic
primitives is limited in scope, as are procedural textures. These are great,
powerful techniques, and fun to use for long-time coders, but there are too many
things you cannot do with them, unless you restrict your work to the few genre
scenes where CSG-only modelling is still appropriate (like math/abstract, some
sci-fi etc.). People now expect from 3D the sort of modelling and texturing they
see on TV everyday : smooth, hyperrealistic or cartoonish objects and
characters. Straight things should be slightly bent, flat things should be
slightly dented, dirt textures should be really irregular and random etc.
Another reason is the present availability of free or relatively cheap modellers
and models, and the ability of present low-end computers to manage large meshes
and large image maps. When I started using Povray in 1993, CSG was simply the
only way to go (and a pleasant one), but this has changed a lot in the past 3 or
4 years.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
I rendered molecules for two years with povray and all I learned in this
time were fading area lights, some backgrounds and focal blur.
Why? Because in my opinion, povray is difficult to learn.
Since I saw my personal Mt. Everest ( "wet bird" from Gilles Tran) I have
phothograph.
Now my 4th IRTC entry is my 5th complete scene and I have still difficulties
povray like Gilles Tran, it would last 10 years at least.
So I think to use modelers or even foreign models is acceptable if there is
a central model or technique, which is completely carried out by oneself.
Even then I have to invest several 100 hours for each entry.
this way.
Norbert
"Zero" <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b420153@news.povray.org...
> I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
> observation to share. I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
> the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being
pushed
> aside by more complex modelling techniques. Which of course means the
> modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds
max
> and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
> spatch, ...) to make a complete scene. Where are the days when all you
> needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to
create
> CSG objects? Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use
NURBS
> or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel. Anyone else have a different view on
this?
>
> Zero
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to support both Gilles and Norbert - when I first started using Pov I
refused to use anything but CSG - but like Gilles and Norbert quickly
realised I would have to learn to model and use meshes and image maps if I
was going to achieve my artistic aims - for me the art comes first and I'll
use any methodology to get there.
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Edward Leibnitz, you recently wrote in irtc.stills:
> Moray leaves you with cylinders and spheres that are placed in location like
> x = 3.232345 y = 2.4356322 z = 7.342345 which is useless if you want to
> "pop" the code into the POV- Ray editor and start programming your CSG's.
I always work with a Snap of 0.1, so I always have coordinates like
<3.2, 2.4, 7.3>. I don't like 8 decimal points either :-) It is
neccessary sometimes when you place things that are rotated or that
should touch some other object at a weird angle. But it still beats
doing the trig :-)
- Lutz
email : lut### [at] stmuccom
Web : http://www.stmuc.com/moray
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> schreef in bericht
news:3b440651@news.povray.org...
> I have to support both Gilles and Norbert - when I first started using Pov
I
> refused to use anything but CSG - but like Gilles and Norbert quickly
> realised I would have to learn to model and use meshes and image maps if
I
> was going to achieve my artistic aims - for me the art comes first and
I'll
> use any methodology to get there.
>
> Mick
I can respect that, and like I said before, I use modellers myself, so I
don't really have anything against them. And even the use of other people's
models (or in my case macros and textures) is acceptable, as long as you do
the biggest part of the image yourself. But consider this: someone wants to
make a scene of his desk, with a computer (monitor, mouse and keyboard), a
pencil, a piece of paper, and a cup. First he fires up rhino to create the
pencil and the cup. Then he starts to search the web to find a model of a
mouse, keyboard and monitor. He scans in a piece of paper, and uses it as
an image map on a plane. Then he imports everything in 3ds max, creates the
textures, moves the models around a bit until it looks good, adds a few
he has a finished image. This whole process can be done in half an hour.
Where is the fun in that? Or the rightful pride in knowing you acomplished
something special?
An example for the other side is your own warm_up.jpg, Norbert. Ok, so the
grass is not your own model, but I have no problem whatsoever with that,
since it is obvious you put more than enough time and effort in the rest of
the image, and like I said, it is perfectly ok to use modellers for complex
models. Artists like you is not who I wanted to complain about in this
message thread. Instead, I wanted to accuse the people who sit down in
front of their computer for half a day, and at the end think they have a
valid entry for the irtc. IMO the irtc is about showing what a computer can
do when pushed to the limits, and not that a computer can make images in a
matter of minutes.
Zero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>But consider this: someone wants to
> make a scene of his desk, with a computer (monitor, mouse and keyboard), a
> pencil, a piece of paper, and a cup. First he fires up rhino to create
the
> pencil and the cup. Then he starts to search the web to find a model of a
> mouse, keyboard and monitor. He scans in a piece of paper, and uses it as
> an image map on a plane. Then he imports everything in 3ds max, creates
the
> textures, moves the models around a bit until it looks good, adds a few
> he has a finished image. This whole process can be done in half an hour.
> Where is the fun in that? Or the rightful pride in knowing you
acomplished
> something special?
...
> Instead, I wanted to accuse the people who sit down in
> front of their computer for half a day, and at the end think they have a
> valid entry for the irtc. IMO the irtc is about showing what a computer
can
> do when pushed to the limits, and not that a computer can make images in a
> matter of minutes.
>
> Zero
As you clarified your point, I think you are right.
But I would be happy if I could do it by this "professional" way in half an
hour. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> schreef
<snip>
> But I would be happy if I could do it by this "professional" way in half
an
> hour. ;)
lol yeah me too :-) Then again, I would be happy if I could make images
like yours, period.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dearmad wrote in message <3B4251B5.AC435215@qwest.net>...
>Nothing less interesting than looking at script
>defining control points of Bezier patches... :o)
Are you sure of that? In one of my recent animations, I wrote a program
that generated an include file consisting of over five thousand "case"
statements, with each case defining the contents of several arrays.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |