I created this strange image by using test 
code for procedural image mapping textures written 
by Jaime Vives Piqueres and available at his web 
site.  All I did was supply image maps, play 
with parameters, and other tiny changes.  
Just thought I'd share it.  Comments welcome.

Thanks Jaime, for making that code available.
--
Jim buddenhagen ( jbuddenh at gmail dot com )

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'proc_demo_4fbox_crop_small.jpg' (58 KB)

Preview of image 'proc_demo_4fbox_crop_small.jpg'

Well, yuh, it's weird alright! But I do rather like it myself... it's
very interesting to look at. Nice one!

Post a reply to this message

> I created this strange image by using test 
> code for procedural image mapping textures written 
> by Jaime Vives Piqueres and available at his web 
> site.  All I did was supply image maps, play 
> with parameters, and other tiny changes.  
> Just thought I'd share it.  Comments welcome.
> 
> Thanks Jaime, for making that code available.
> --
> Jim buddenhagen ( jbuddenh at gmail dot com )
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks great !!!

-- 
Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net

A+

Post a reply to this message

James Buddenhagen wrote:
> <snip> All I did was supply image maps, play 
> with parameters, and other tiny changes.

<soapbox>
It really bothers me that so many pictures here start with, of all 
things, an Internet search. And not just for reference. For objects and 
pictures to fill in a scene.

The near limitless possibilities of our blank "canvas" become restricted 
to a very finite set when the success of a Google search determines the 
direction of a scene.

Below is a small attachment. A little experimenting with POV-Ray 
pigments. Not perfect, but I'm no geologist.
</soapbox>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stone.jpg' (80 KB)

Preview of image 'stone.jpg'

"Shay" <dd### [at] dddd> wrote in message news:42765166@news.povray.org...
> James Buddenhagen wrote:
> > <snip> All I did was supply image maps, play 
> > with parameters, and other tiny changes.
> 
> <soapbox>
> It really bothers me that so many pictures here start with, of all 
> things, an Internet search. And not just for reference. For objects and 
> pictures to fill in a scene.

The image I posted did not start as an 'Internet search'.  I am new at POV 
and looking at other peoples stuff and tutorials is very helpful to me.
In fact I did not set out to make any image.  I simply clicked on a link 
posted in the recent 'autobahn' thread in this news group. Stefano Tessarin 
raised the question of whether the pavement textures (in Jaime's image) 
are procedurals or image_maps and Zeger Knaepen replied 

  " Knowing Jaime, it's probably a proceduralized image_map:
    http://ignorancia.org/tech_page.php?image=23&db=tips "

Hey, I didn't even know what the question meant, but I clicked on the link. 
The pictures at that site (of Jaime Vives Piqueres) look really neat to me 
and there was a clickable item for the source. So of course I downloaded it 
to see how he did it. It was natural to try my own images (from digital 
photos that I took) as image maps, and to play with parameters to see 
what I would get.  After some fun hours of experimenting I came up with 
the image I posted.  I very carefully gave Jaime credit for the code 
and explained my role.  So, quite frankly I don't know what your problem is.

> The near limitless possibilities of our blank "canvas" become restricted 
> to a very finite set when the success of a Google search determines the 
> direction of a scene.

Nonsense.  There is no reason one cannot look on the internet to try 
to learn and also later apply the knowleged gained to a blank canvas. 
In fact I have posted several images here that started from a totally 
a 'blank canvas'.
 
> Below is a small attachment. A little experimenting with POV-Ray 
> pigments. Not perfect, but I'm no geologist.
> </soapbox>

I have no idea what your attachment was trying to show.  I certainly 
wouldn't substitute it for the floor texture of the image I posted, 
which started out as a digital image of an abstract ceramic sculpture 
that I made.

Jim Buddenhagen

Post a reply to this message

James Buddenhagen wrote:
> So, quite frankly I don't know what your problem is.

What problem? What you posted was less an image that a technique 
demonstration. I injected my opinion on that technique into the discussion.

IMO, it's of course valid, but tragically overused.

> I have no idea what your attachment was trying to show.

Consider the attachment a parenthetical remark to my comments.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I think this image, particularly the texturing, came out terrific. The
corrosion on the rounded cube looks extremely natural and realistic to me.
I've seen similar verdigris/salt-deposit effects on metal objects in real
life, so this works for me.

I personally have no problems with the use of combination
procedural/image-mapping methods, especially when the images used are your
own. I also have no problems with copying someone else's technique with
permission, as I consider that as a sort of intellectual property commons,
that helps everyone produce better images than would otherwise exist. No
one condemns Alias or Discreet Software for copying Lambert's shading
technique for matte surfaces. Anything that helps produce better texturing,
better images, I'm all for it, long as it doesn't violate copyright, as
Buddenhagen didn't.

I know of websites on texturing that caution against the use of purely
procedural textures, as too often they are produced without much thought or
effort and they tend to have a very synthesized, unnatural look. The
textures used here, by contrast, look to me very natural indeed. I would
love to see more of this kind of stuff. :)

Great job and kudos to James Buddenhagen. :)

Post a reply to this message

"Boumboum34" <boumboum34[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:web.42794245b4840302741a4fef0@news.povray.org...
> I think this image, particularly the texturing, came out terrific. The
> corrosion on the rounded cube looks extremely natural and realistic to me.
> I've seen similar verdigris/salt-deposit effects on metal objects in real
> life, so this works for me.
>
> I personally have no problems with the use of combination
> procedural/image-mapping methods, especially when the images used are your
> own. I also have no problems with copying someone else's technique with
> permission, as I consider that as a sort of intellectual property commons,
> that helps everyone produce better images than would otherwise exist. No
> one condemns Alias or Discreet Software for copying Lambert's shading
> technique for matte surfaces. Anything that helps produce better texturing,
> better images, I'm all for it, long as it doesn't violate copyright, as
> Buddenhagen didn't.
>
> I know of websites on texturing that caution against the use of purely
> procedural textures, as too often they are produced without much thought or
> effort and they tend to have a very synthesized, unnatural look. The
> textures used here, by contrast, look to me very natural indeed. I would
> love to see more of this kind of stuff. :)
>
> Great job and kudos to James Buddenhagen. :)

Many thanks for the encouraging words.

James

Post a reply to this message