"Dearmad" <dea### [at] qwestnet> schreef in bericht
news:3B420E5F.519BBF8F@qwest.net...
>
> Not a different view from your observation... but do
> you have an opinion on this?  For myself I'm addicted
> to animation, so having a modeler assist me is really
> helpful.  I've never graded an image/animation down
> because someone hand-coded vs. used a modeler- I grade
> down for technical if they borrow models and don't
> create them.
>
> I don't consider the IRTC a compositional contest, like
> a contest where models are supplied and we use them.
> I'm interested in composition combined with interp
> combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
> show originality.

Guess I should indeed have been more clear about my opinion on the matter.
I don't have anything against modellers - in fact I use them myself - but I
feel that people should first try to make objects out of CSG, and only the
really complicated models should be created with help of a modeling program.
Not only does it demonstrate a real grasp of abstract 3 dimensional
creation, but it will also improve parsing speed in POV-Ray and simular
programs.  Of course parsing speed means very little for programs like 3ds
max, which almost exclusively uses scanline - but that's a different
discussion.
So basically I think I should say I don't look down on an image because it
was created using a modeller, but I would rate the same picture better (the
technical aspect at least) if it were entirely CSG.
As for using other people's models, I completely agree on that.  Composition
is an important part of making an image, but is is only part of it, so
people should really be encouraged to use their own models, and not models
found on the net.
I like seeing that the artist really put time and effort in the image.

Zero

Post a reply to this message

"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.

Zero

Post a reply to this message

Fortunately there are still those who make their scenes almost entirely
by hand. One name comes immediately to my mind: H. E. Day.
  One example:

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/drunkpat.jpg

  Also this seems to be made mostly by hand (eg. the woman):

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-04-30/aseafort.jpg

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Well, in my case when I entered the IRTC there was just
TOO much code to show.  So far all the stuff I've used
generates script files but often I generate megabytes
worth of script in order to render my animations.
Nothing less interesting than looking at script
defining control points of Bezier patches... :o)

Even with my latest efforts using Hash AM I generate
script files, but they aren't the port through which I
modify things anymore, as they still are when I use
Polyray.

I guess I've always just contacted th author of an
image/anim when I want to know something, as they all
tend to be online and accessible.

-peter

ingo wrote:
> 
> in news:3B420E5F.519BBF8F@qwest.net Dearmad wrote:
> 
> > I'm interested in composition combined with interp
> > combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
> > show originality.
> >
> 
> Source File:
> (none given)
> 
> 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
> 
> --
> Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
> Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

-- 
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

Zero wrote:
> 
> Guess I should indeed have been more clear about my opinion on the matter.
> I don't have anything against modellers - in fact I use them myself - but I
> feel that people should first try to make objects out of CSG, and only the
> really complicated models should be created with help of a modeling program.
> Not only does it demonstrate a real grasp of abstract 3 dimensional
> creation, but it will also improve parsing speed in POV-Ray and simular
> programs.  Of course parsing speed means very little for programs like 3ds
> max, which almost exclusively uses scanline - but that's a different
> discussion.

Well interesting, I guess we do disagree then.  I
enjoyed my stint writing script by hand and CSGing the
hell out of things way back when, but for the stuff I
want to do now, I couldn't imagine writing it by hand. 
The sheer amount of data alone staggers me, and for
animation placing objects and angling joints would numb
me.  I can't say I'm a whatever tool works I'll use it
person, I hunger for elegance and ease in my solutions
to imaging problems and sometimes spend hours just
trying to make solve problems in a more elegant way
than throwing bajillions of numbers (so to speak) at a
problem.

Also, some models based on splines or bezier patches,
etc are just NO FUN to hand code. :o)

Yes, my early handscripting allows me to easily
visualize some things others will miss, but I no longer
do projects (stills included) that lend themselves to
hand coding.

> So basically I think I should say I don't look down on an image because it
> was created using a modeller, but I would rate the same picture better (the
> technical aspect at least) if it were entirely CSG.

I would too- if Gilles Tran hand coded all his stuff I
would toss in the towel.

However, all of this being said, I have YET to produce
ANY final still image with a modeller that I haven't
had to go back in to and tweak by hand, sometimes
MASSIVELY, and, now that I think of it, this includes
every single final scene I have animated.

<snip>

-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

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)

BTW: HE Day's image you linked to is a beautiful thing,
and even if I did something like it NOT by hand I
realize what an undertaking that would be.

-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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:3b422140@news.povray.org...
>   Fortunately there are still those who make their scenes almost entirely
> by hand. One name comes immediately to my mind: H. E. Day.
>   One example:
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/drunkpat.jpg
>
>   Also this seems to be made mostly by hand (eg. the woman):
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-04-30/aseafort.jpg

Indeed there are still a few, but they seem to become less and less.  Howard
Day's images are a great example that you don't need an expensive modeling
tool to get great results.  To me, an image such as Drunk Patrol is much
more impressive than anything created with an all-in-one modeller.
Thanks for the examples :-)

Zero

Post a reply to this message

"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