 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'frame.0000.jpg' (52 KB)
Preview of image 'frame.0000.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>
Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>>
> Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
Ohhhhhh, I get it 52Kb in a frame ;)
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>>>
>> Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
>
>
> Ohhhhhh, I get it 52Kb in a frame ;)
>
Don't let it happen again. We take our art pretty serious around here
you know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks really good. I remember you posting a frame awhile back (maybe a year
ago?)
I really like the fact that you've made it look a little old/dented. Also,
while we can't actually see the light source, the reflections look great.
Was this HDRI?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Looks really good. I remember you posting a frame awhile back (maybe a year
> ago?)
>
> I really like the fact that you've made it look a little old/dented. Also,
> while we can't actually see the light source, the reflections look great.
> Was this HDRI?
>
>
No HDRI. Default background. Lighting/camera are very simple, didn't
even use radiosity here, just a touch of ambient. (An earlier one had a
fly-blown appearance do to abusive use of area light.) Perspective camera.
The outer proportion of the frame is the starting point and then the
frame is compounded inward from primitives. (Working from the aspect
ratio of what would be the framed area as the starting point, then
building outward, would be a somewhat different thing, and, who knows,
might lead to different frame "designs".)
Simplicity is what this is all about. The texture is quite simple too.
On this one I removed the reflection. What you are seeing is the high
specular. The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations
are scaled granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play
of making the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:429de405$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Simplicity is what this is all about. The texture is quite simple too. On
> this one I removed the reflection. What you are seeing is the high
> specular.
I guess perhaps I've been away from POV for too long. The specular really
looks good to me. :-)
> The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations are scaled
> granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play of making
> the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
Ahhh... Even though I often use subtle humor, that doesn't mean that I often
"get it" when others do. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
>
> I guess perhaps I've been away from POV for too long. The specular really
> looks good to me. :-)
>
Thanks
>
>>The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations are scaled
>>granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play of making
>>the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
>
>
> Ahhh... Even though I often use subtle humor, that doesn't mean that I often
> "get it" when others do. :-)
>
>
Some scholars maintain that the title/file weight is actually a subtley
disguised, self-reference to the actual number of components used to
model the *inner* frame. But the artist denies any connection claiming
it is merely coincidence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Very nice. I have always loved these kinds of "fractals" (not sure if
that's accurate) which change element aspect ratio due to a consistent
wall thickness. I remember writing my name on graph paper as a kid and
tracing a spiral around while the outline became closer to a rectangle
with each pass.
I have hilighted this aspect ratio change in the past with diagonals in
the elements. This of course means layers, so the nesting effect is
destroyed.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
