This is the second version of the goofy picture.  This time I added handles
to the lenses.  This allowed them to have a "direction" and be slightly more
menacing.   I turned the ant slightly to face the closer threat.  I tried
creating a mound and raising the ant, however the ant didn't look as
vulnerable so I put him back down to ground level. I did increase the ant's
size a little. I'm considering adding text within the image to look like a
movie poster but I'm undecided at this point.

Any suggestions/comments about the image?

Patrick Dugan

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'FlyingMagnifiers.jpg' (180 KB)

Preview of image 'FlyingMagnifiers.jpg'

Patrick Dugan wrote:
> Any suggestions/comments about the image?

needs a slight motion blur on the lenses to imply motion

--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

I thought that handles would make it look rubbish... actually it looks
better now. Not sure about the smoke - doesn't look right somehow...

Keep at it!
Andrew.

Post a reply to this message

noticias 3e78a580@news.povray.org...
> Any suggestions/comments about the image?

Looks nice, but I think it would be more "dramatic" if
some rays hit the ground near the ant.

Just an opinion

Post a reply to this message

I've never seen any rays when using a magnifying lens.

"Txemi Jendrix" <tji### [at] euskalnetnet> wrote in message
news:3e78e337@news.povray.org...

> noticias 3e78a580@news.povray.org...
> > Any suggestions/comments about the image?
>
> Looks nice, but I think it would be more "dramatic" if
> some rays hit the ground near the ant.
>
> Just an opinion
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Thanks!

I intended to get a more "wispy" looking smoke, but this was the best I good
come up with using the smokegen.inc file.

"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3e78e20a@news.povray.org...
> I thought that handles would make it look rubbish... actually it looks
> better now. Not sure about the smoke - doesn't look right somehow...
>
> Keep at it!
> Andrew.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

noticias 3e78e9d5$1@news.povray.org...
> I've never seen any rays when using a magnifying lens.

Sorry, I meant the light spots.
Bye

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

Hi Patrick,

that looks really threatening! Especially the 'boss' in the center,
because he is facing not only the ant, but also *ME*. Perhaps it
(or he?) could be a little bit more separated from the rest of the
gang?

I wouldn't give it motion blur: if the threat moves, whatever happens,
it will be over in a couple of seconds. But if everything stays as
it is, the persistent threat will accumulate and enhance the high-
noon situation (or is it a hasta-la-vista-baby situation?)
An exception might be the extreme left and right side: more lenses
could arrive (with motion blur) and give the impression of a ring of lenses
closing progressively tighter around the poor ant, whitch is
looking back over its two left shoulders, not knowing where to go on
its tiny sand island ...  (I suggest you make it smaller -- not greater
than a lens, and completely surrounded by grass to make escaping
seemingly impossible. And grainier sand, please, it looks like a
solid stone.)

The sunny grass is really great! Sun, colors, contrast, distribution,
randomness: everything fits well. The smoke also -- but in my opinion it
should be less curvy, spread out more and get much fuzzier as it flies
away. Color and density are perfect. What about a tiny orange glowing
point at the focus?

A last word about the lenses:
Spherical lenses have the same radius of curvature everywhere; para-
bolic lenses have the smallest radius of curvature in the middle and
get flatter outside. Your glass is the opposite: flat in the middle,
rounded at the rim -- it is a squeezed sphere, isn't it? You better
replace it by something like an
intersection { sphere { y, 1.1 } sphere { -y, 1.1 } ... }

Despite my lengthy comments, I like it! Much better than the first
version -- let's see more!

   Sputnik

--
----------------------------

fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
----------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Thanks!

The soil is a pain.  If the colors get too grainy then the ant disappears
(can't see it very well.)  I'm still trying different methods and sizes
though.

The smoke isn't what I want but so far I haven't found any good examples
that look like what I need.

Yes, you are right the lenses are nothing more than squeezed spheres.  I'll
test with your version next.


Patrick



news:3e78f83b$1@news.povray.org...
> Hi Patrick,
>
> that looks really threatening! Especially the 'boss' in the center,
> because he is facing not only the ant, but also *ME*. Perhaps it
> (or he?) could be a little bit more separated from the rest of the
> gang?
>
> I wouldn't give it motion blur: if the threat moves, whatever happens,
> it will be over in a couple of seconds. But if everything stays as
> it is, the persistent threat will accumulate and enhance the high-
> noon situation (or is it a hasta-la-vista-baby situation?)
> An exception might be the extreme left and right side: more lenses
> could arrive (with motion blur) and give the impression of a ring of
lenses
> closing progressively tighter around the poor ant, whitch is
> looking back over its two left shoulders, not knowing where to go on
> its tiny sand island ...  (I suggest you make it smaller -- not greater
> than a lens, and completely surrounded by grass to make escaping
> seemingly impossible. And grainier sand, please, it looks like a
> solid stone.)
>
> The sunny grass is really great! Sun, colors, contrast, distribution,
> randomness: everything fits well. The smoke also -- but in my opinion it
> should be less curvy, spread out more and get much fuzzier as it flies
> away. Color and density are perfect. What about a tiny orange glowing
> point at the focus?
>
> A last word about the lenses:
> Spherical lenses have the same radius of curvature everywhere; para-
> bolic lenses have the smallest radius of curvature in the middle and
> get flatter outside. Your glass is the opposite: flat in the middle,
> rounded at the rim -- it is a squeezed sphere, isn't it? You better
> replace it by something like an
> intersection { sphere { y, 1.1 } sphere { -y, 1.1 } ... }
>
> Despite my lengthy comments, I like it! Much better than the first
> version -- let's see more!
>
>    Sputnik
>
> --
> ----------------------------

> fr### [at] computermuseumfh-kielde
> ----------------------------
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> Yes, you are right the lenses are nothing more than squeezed spheres.  I'll
> test with your version next.

The thing is spherical lenses don't really work very well and always suffer 
from abberation. If you *really* want to burn that grass, parabolic is the 
way to go! Try something like quadric{<1,0,1>,<0,0,0>,<0,1,0>,0} and some 
CSG to create a real parabolic lens. And remember if you've taken math 
class, a scaled parabola is still a perfectly good parabola (although it 
might render faster to play with the terms instead).

-- 
light_source#macro G(E)sphere{z+E*y*5e-3.04rotate-z*E*6pigment{rgbt#end{
20*y-10#local n=162;1}#while(n)#local n=n-.3;G(n)x}}G(-n).7}}#end//GregE

Post a reply to this message