"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f72fb9a@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:3f71e857@news.povray.org...
> |
> | I haven't tried a daylight scene yet. Any pointers?
>
> Radiosity + area_light.

   Ok, that's fine, I'll give it a bash.


>
> |
> | I don't mind any REAL suggestions at all.
>
> Don't forget that this suggestion is from someone who placed well
below
> you.lol

    Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
you one day... <g>

>
> |
> | Hmm... too cluttered? I like the idea, though.
>
> I don't mean clutter. What I mean is decreasing the "size" of your
scene
> and in doing so decreasing the number of elements a viewer expects
to
> see. This removes the empty look of many scenes. The best example I
can
> think of is a picture gallery. If you were to model a picture
gallery,
> you would need a certain number of paintings for each unit space of
> wall. If you hung a single bulb fixture in the middle of the
ceiling,
> then the viewer would expect the gallery to be bedroom sized, and
you
> would only need to include a few paintings. If you put in an exposed
> beam ceiling with dozens of light fixtures, then the viewer would
expect
> the gallery to be stadium sized, and you would need to include
hundreds
> of paintings.
>
> That's just stadium sized. A person sees a flat horizon at nine
*miles*,
> so when you show the unobscured horizon in your pictures, a viewer
> expects to see many square miles worth of scene elements!! As large
as a
> mountain is, it's area is many many times smaller than the viewable
flat
> land it obscures. So, just by adding a mountain to your scene, you
have
> decreased the viewer's element expectation by over ninety-nine
percent!!
>
> It's can also be a good idea to limit the viewers "imagination eye"
from
> wondering off the sides of the picture. "Radio Graves" is a good
> example. The sides of the fence around the radios is of course not
> visible, but the imagination still recognizes it as a barrier. This
is
> why no partially cut-off radios are needed to suggest that the
elements
> continue. The elements don't need to continue, because they are not
> expected to.
>
> I've noticed that ninety-nine percent of pictures which show the
horizon
> are pictures of water, because a viewer's imagination expects water
to
> be empty and will not question a lack of elements over the many
"miles"
> he can see.
>
> Of course, don't take my advice too seriously on this. I don't put
> together pictures according to that formula at all!!!lol

  Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then... but you're kidding
that I can't take this too seriously, it's great advice to me and
makes sense, and I've actually saved it to a text file. Thanks.



For "scenes",
> however, I think this is the way to increase your score, though how
you
> could value a high score after seeing the results of the last round
is
> puzzling to me.

    I think that it puzzled more than a few people...

>
> |
> | I think I should have entered this...     :o[
>
> Yeah, you've done exactly what I'm taking about. You've cut down the
> area to only a few virtual square feet. I'll bet this picture would
have
> scored much higher that the one you did enter.

  My thoughts exactly.

    ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message

If I may add something...

> Enter so that you're part of the POV community.

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, there are people (like
me) who want to take part of the IRTC, but do not use POV. If I succeed on
submitting an entry to the current contest (and that, unfortunately, is a
big IF because of Real Life (TM) getting in the way), it will be probably be
rendered by Pixie or another free, open source Renderman compliant renderer,
because of the speed and flexibility that I can't find (yet) in POV.
However, I'd like to feel I'm part of the IRTC community, even if I'm not a
POV'er. Of course, the IRTC tends to be POV-centric, but all renderers are
allowed.

For the record, I've used POV for many years, since POV 2.2, I guess (I
can't remember the version, but one of the examples was a green glass ball
inside a framed box, with some odd reflection above... very cool picture...
around 1995, IIRC). But I can't afford the CPU time to use it right now, and
I'm really into Renderman (fiddling with shaders can be serious *fun*).
Also, I want to make a point on using only Free, open-source software, which
POV isn't (technically, because of the license).

On everything else, I couldn't agree more with you.

Best regards,

Roberto

P.S.: Also, looking back at this post, I think I might be an excellent LISP
programmer. I didn't notice before how I use so many parenthesis. :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3f72017b@news.povray.org...

> Talking seriously, I'm considering not to enter anymore.

    Hey, I'm a fan, you've got to enter! Seriously, don't give up on
it, you've got a lot to offer.

    ~Steve~



> Txemi Jendrix
> http://www.txemijendrix.com
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f732af9@news.povray.org...
|
| Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
| you one day... <g>

yer on.

|
|   Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then...

This is the funny thing:
A friend wants to start a competition between the two of us where we
would model space ships, so my next major project (set of course in
outer space) may be the exact opposite of all of that.

I am almost strictly 2.5D, but I can't resist the opportunity to model
all of those intricate little space ship details. If we do it, we're
going to do an apples to apples comparison. We will both be re-designing
a Klingon D7. If it's official, I may post in p.o-t to see if I can find
some other joiners.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Well, I certainly didn't mean to exclude anyone not using POV.  I should have said
RayTracing community rather than POV community.
I'm a die hard POVer, so sometimes my view of the IRTC is slightly warped. :-)

Andrew Wilcox

(Isn't that what they call back-peddaling.)

Post a reply to this message

It's not just Zazzle.  I've seen people who know nothing about Zazzle who
have had it as wall-paper.  Perhaps it's just had lots of exposure in
general.

I'll admit that it's oddly compelling.

-- 
Jeremy
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:3f732613$3@news.povray.org...
>
> I guess that its popularity is mostly an artefact of Zazzle's
"best-seller"
> feature in the pre-beta phase, which was actually a "most clicked"
feature.
> "Fluorescence" was one of the first really good images at Zazzle, got
> clicked on a
> lot when Zazzle was young and it got stuck forever on the top list, since
> people
> would click on the first images of the list.
>
> G.
>
> -- 
>
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
> >
> > -- 
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f733ce5@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message
news:3f732af9@news.povray.org...
> |
> | Heh... Well, I'm sure I'll beat that and get a little lower than
> | you one day... <g>
>
> yer on.

     Ten bucks says you'll lose. <shakes Shays hand>  ;)


>
> |
> |   Heheh... You'll have to try it one day then...
>
> This is the funny thing:
> A friend wants to start a competition between the two of us where we
> would model space ships, so my next major project (set of course in
> outer space) may be the exact opposite of all of that.

    That would be interesting to see.

>
> I am almost strictly 2.5D,

    You're into 2D as well?

but I can't resist the opportunity to model
> all of those intricate little space ship details.

   And 3D too?!   ;)


If we do it, we're
> going to do an apples to apples comparison. We will both be
re-designing
> a Klingon D7. If it's official, I may post in p.o-t to see if I can
find
> some other joiners.

   Give it a go, and post a 'taster'. I'd be glad to help if I can. My
kind of image.

    ~Steve~


>
>  -Shay
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Well, I certainly didn't mean to exclude anyone not using POV.  I should
have
> said RayTracing community rather than POV community.
> I'm a die hard POVer, so sometimes my view of the IRTC is slightly warped.
:-)

No problem at all, I've been there. :-)

> (Isn't that what they call back-peddaling.)

Well, I have no idea. English is my second language, and literal translation
of the above to my native language doesn't mean much. :-D

Best regards!!!

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3f735b33@news.povray.org...

|Shay:
| I am almost strictly 2.5D,

|Steve:
| You're into 2D as well?

Not 2D, 2.5D. What I mean by that is that most of my pictures have
*much* larger x and y than z dimensions, basically showing the patterns
and details of something without bothering to show the shape of that
thing or its relation to its surroundings.

|Steve:
| And 3D too?!   ;)

Well, my IRTC entry is the closest I've gotten to 3D in a while, but the
ship would of course be 3D.

|Steve:
|    Give it a go, and post a 'taster'. I'd be glad to help
| if I can.

Give it a go with us! I'd like to see what you come up with. We still
haven't come up with a good way to choose the winner, but will likely
try to find some sci-fi fans to decide.

|Steve:
| My kind of image.

It really isn't mine and I'm not even a Star Trek fan. BUT, a friend who
is started talking about what a good design the original Klingon D7s
were and how poorly they were developed in the movies. He gave me an
interest in seeing if I could come up with an "alternate evolution" of
the ship. We'll be keeping the original configuration (which was only
ever shown from a distance on TV) and working on our ideas of how the
ships *should* have looked up close.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

The rating system on Zazzle SHOULD be based on sales, not on votes.  No
sooner did I submit 2 images, and someone ran in and gave them both a rating
of 1, most likely because they wanted their own image at the top.  I don't
trust rating systems... I trust my own instincts and tastes.  You can tell
me that a bag of dog poop is a great work of art until you're blue in the
face, but if it doesn't do it for me it doesn't do it for me.  If you buy
into all that you are not thinking for yourself.

As far as this round is concerned, some of the results were surprising, but
I don't put a lot of weight into the scores.  Most of us enter because we
enjoy raytracing, most often with POV.  If you're in it to win, you are
probably better off searching for competitions that have a prize of some
sort.  Personally, I look forward to seeing entries by folks like Gilles,
Mick, Jaime, Christoph, etc... images like theirs are what got me into
raytracing in the first place.

--
Doug Eichenberg
www.getinfo.net/douge
dou### [at] nlsnet

Post a reply to this message