 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] yahooNOSPAM com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> 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.
ok... maybe that IS worse... :o)
-peter
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother? I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually some of the POV users may be masochists rather that purists. The only
modeler I use is Poser. I like to see what I can do with the primitive shapes
and freeware. This makes organic objects very hard to do, and regretfully I
spending the time on the learning curve.
Power to the masochists,
Bob
Norbert Kern wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zero" <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> wrote in news:3b42206e$1@news.povray.org:
> "ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> schreef in bericht
> news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
>> I like to have a peek at the if there is something in an image that
>> interests me. Not to copy the tricks, just to see how people aproched
>> a problem. To me this is one of the most attractive aspects of the
>> IRTC. With the use of modelers etc. there isn't much code to see
>> anymore.
>>
>> Ingo
>
> Agreed. A file generated by a modeller only shows the end result, not
> the way that result was reached.
This is why I think people should expand on the idea of "source code" when
it comes to modellers.
I'm a heavy Moray and Rhino user, so my source is often too large to
include. However, a series of Work in Progress images, imagemaps, closeups
of objects, textures, etc, can still demonstrate many of the tricks. Plus,
this can be appreciated by all users.
While we POVers are dismayed at the lack of source from the more complex
modelers, I'm sure a lot of them regret that the POV source provided has no
real meaning. POV source is great, but it should always be suplemented by
more generic information.
-- Simon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
