Look familiar at all? That Alabama Welcome Center, again.

It has changed because of how I remembered it versus seeing it in person
again, taking some notes on measurements and structure this time. Yet, still
lost track of exactly how the front entrance part is made. Has a flat front
roofline, at least partially, with three marble panels embedded there.

The lighting isn't going together very well anymore. It has more lights than
the first version so those porch-like walkways aren't as sporadically lit
now. Probably doesn't help that I added headlights from the freeway to shine
on the front. If I can use photons to hilight the walls better, I will, but
it might prove an ugly attempt. Already using fade_distance 2 fade_power 2
on those roof perimeter lights and everything is scaled as 1 unit =1 foot
(to keep it American).

Trees yet to be added.

Comments, good or bad, lots or none, are always welcome. ;-)

P.S. Thank you Zeger Knaepen, wherever you are! 'brick' wouldn't be bricks
without yours.

And thanks for looking all.
Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'awc1.jpg' (67 KB)

Preview of image 'awc1.jpg'

It's still a good model.  Try what I do when modeling reality.  If the thing
isn't in front of you snap 50 or pics with a digi cam.  One big shot of
every face, then lots from other angles.  With buildings it can be worth
going inside especially big open buildings, because elements of the
structure sometimes can only be seen from inside ( or from a helicopter ).

Post a reply to this message

"Josh" <som### [at] microsoftcom> wrote in message
news:410a0be4$1@news.povray.org...
> It's still a good model.  Try what I do when modeling reality.  If the
thing
> isn't in front of you snap 50 or pics with a digi cam.  One big shot of
> every face, then lots from other angles.  With buildings it can be worth
> going inside especially big open buildings, because elements of the
> structure sometimes can only be seen from inside ( or from a helicopter ).

Thank you Josh. I agree. Would be better still if real orthographic cameras
existed.
:-)
I meant to take my camera with me when I went out there a couple days ago
and simply forgot to grab it as I went out the door. Got pictures tonight,
though, and image file attached is almost the same view I'm trying to
render. The moment I saw it again I realized I jotted down notes a bit
hastily and made mistakes. Nothing quite like a photograph for accuracy.
Well, almost... since this was nighttime and no tripod to do long exposures
with so my photos have been severely post-processed in order to see them
clearly.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'AWC_front_corner-preview.jpg' (109 KB)

Preview of image 'AWC_front_corner-preview.jpg'

This helps very much to determine the accuracy of your model. You've
replicated the basic shape almost perfectly, but certain things need
adjusting. I'm sure you know what to do.

It's probably going to be difficult to achieve the same light, but worth a
try! There is a strong lightsource to the left and above (heavy street
light?) and the built-in lights create glows. I've noticed that such glows
are typical for night-shots. You practically always get them. The weather
doesn't have to be foggy for that.

I sort of prefer the white/grey look, rather than the strong blue/yellow on
your model. But I realise the colours on the photo may be off. You know it
better than me. Though I remember having read that humans don't see vivid
colours at night. Everything becomes more grey because of the way our eyes
compensate for the lower light, and below a certain threshold, the blue
color component becomes dominant.

I'm looking forward to your next post.

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

"Hughes, B." <bob### [at] charternet> schreef in bericht
news:410b490b@news.povray.org...
> I meant to take my camera with me when I went out there a couple days ago
> and simply forgot to grab it as I went out the door. Got pictures tonight,
> though, and image file attached is almost the same view I'm trying to
> render. The moment I saw it again I realized I jotted down notes a bit
> hastily and made mistakes. Nothing quite like a photograph for accuracy.
> Well, almost... since this was nighttime and no tripod to do long
exposures
> with so my photos have been severely post-processed in order to see them
> clearly.
>
What is extremely fascinating, is the way your mind 'remembered' the
building. For instance, the focus on the marble slabs, was interpreted very
differently from reality, leading, in the end, to a clearly different
building: the "mind's building" vs. the "real building". This leads to very
interesting concepts about the creation of "worlds" I would say (not even
speaking about the reliability of witnesses!!).
I am not sure which building I prefer... The "mind's building" could lead to
very interesting new vistas...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:410ca973@news.povray.org...
>
> What is extremely fascinating, is the way your mind 'remembered' the
> building. For instance, the focus on the marble slabs, was interpreted
very
> differently from reality, leading, in the end, to a clearly different
> building: the "mind's building" vs. the "real building". This leads to
very
> interesting concepts about the creation of "worlds" I would say (not even
> speaking about the reliability of witnesses!!).

And I keep thinking I can recall details of anything fairly well as long as
it's visual imagery and not words. Guess it's better than having put a
second floor atop the first by mistake! But your right, with such diversity
occuring, while attempting mimicry, perhaps originality in architecture (or
whatever else) comes from a diffusion of real-world input. Just that the
output can be most anything, only rearranged.

> I am not sure which building I prefer... The "mind's building" could lead
to
> very interesting new vistas...

Would certainly have been easier not to try and duplicate it.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo Asm" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:410bbf24@news.povray.org...
>
> There is a strong lightsource to the left and above (heavy street
> light?) and the built-in lights create glows.

Yep, there's two orange sodium lamps. One in front and a little to the right
side of the building (its post is along the left edge of photo), the other
visible at the left side and behind the building. The bluish cast is from
three sets of four large mercury(?) floodlights, surrounding the rocket on
display, about 50 to 75 meters in front of the building. They are a little
above ground level so they (actually, mostly one set) shine beneath the
trees. In fact, all other lights for the parking lot are sodium lamps too.
Very contrasting in color, obviously.

> I sort of prefer the white/grey look, rather than the strong blue/yellow
on
> your model. But I realise the colours on the photo may be off. You know it
> better than me. Though I remember having read that humans don't see vivid
> colours at night. Everything becomes more grey because of the way our eyes
> compensate for the lower light, and below a certain threshold, the blue
> color component becomes dominant.

B&W, or grayscales, could definitely be good for this. Nice idea. I had been
back there at twilight the first time and late at night the next time (with
camera). Was very blue-gray from a twilight sky but the lights all take over
at night and mix blues with yellows. A power outage could make it look gray.
;-)
Bob H.

Post a reply to this message