|
 |
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:437c1bbb$1@news.povray.org...
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>
>>>in news:437af099@news.povray.org Jim Charter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>some megapov motion blur
>>>
>>>This is beautyful, Jim.
>>
>>
>> I second that !
>>
>>
> Thank you gentlemen. It's a fairly spartan piece but the great thing
> about these groups is that there's always someone who gets what you are
> trying to do.
Third (or is it fourth now?).
Did you try to mimic the exact motion of the lure? I don't think I would
know the difference, but you obviously put some thought into the motion.
With your posts, however, I'm never quite certain if I grasped the true
meaning. Feel free to enlighten me if you'd like. I took band instead of
art. :-)
It has been my wallpaper for the last couple of days, here at work. I've
had a couple of people ask me what it was, which strikes up a conversation
about two things I love to talk about: POV-Ray and fishing. :-)
In that vein, my mom recently bought an Amish-built "jelly cupboard" for my
wife and me. It looks very much like a "new antique", if I can use that
term. Anyway, it has revived my love of creating wooden things in POV-Ray.
I just may have to create a POV-Ray version of it.
--
Jeremy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
> news:437c1bbb$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>>
>>>ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>in news:437af099@news.povray.org Jim Charter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>some megapov motion blur
>>>>
>>>>This is beautyful, Jim.
>>>
>>>
>>>I second that !
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Thank you gentlemen. It's a fairly spartan piece but the great thing
>>about these groups is that there's always someone who gets what you are
>>trying to do.
>
>
> Third (or is it fourth now?).
>
> Did you try to mimic the exact motion of the lure? I don't think I would
> know the difference, but you obviously put some thought into the motion.
> With your posts, however, I'm never quite certain if I grasped the true
> meaning. Feel free to enlighten me if you'd like. I took band instead of
> art. :-)
It is a opening shot. A very limited first stab at realizing a
collection of ideas I have had surrounding the use of motion blur for
many years now. That picture "Shorebirds" is another approach to it but
there the subject is caught in various random blurred postures with no
real structure.
My idea really comes from a canvas by the painter Joe Andoe, who I have
mentioned here before, and whose work I admire very much. The canvas in
question showed the incubus of an idea that, to my knowledge, Joe never
subsequently pursued. It was an early work in his signature
scraped-into-impasto style and it portrayed a small bird in flight. In
an apparent attempt to record his impressions in a very naive way he
showed the wings flapping in many strobed instances so the bird looked
more like a flower.
So what I have always wanted to do was take that strobed look and apply
it to some motion along a path. But the point is, (to finally answer
your question,) that the effect is to be highly subjective, painterly,
based on the trappings of strobed photographs, but also incorporating
blurred photo effects, and as well, citing the narrative tradition of
pictorial art which allows for a sequence of events to be portrayed in a
continuous space.
(examples of this are two numerous to cite but think Trajan's Column,
Duccio's The Tribute Money, or even those endless studies by Picasso of
"Three Women" sitting in a group (which also just happen to give you the
front, back, and profile shot in sequence.)
>
> It has been my wallpaper for the last couple of days, here at work. I've
> had a couple of people ask me what it was, which strikes up a conversation
> about two things I love to talk about: POV-Ray and fishing. :-)
What can I say? I'm very flattered. This picture was actually just a
test but it took awhile to render and while I felt it didn't "nail" all
I hoped would result, I couldn't specifically say why not, so I posted
it. Therefore I reserve the right to extend the series without
committing to it as a series. ;)
I am right now modifying the code so that the snap aligns more with the
monfilament, would would be more natural, and also applying true motion
blur to the monofilament. In this picture I just layed them down with a
loop. What is involved is putting the global settings inside a macro so
the motion blur parameters can be reset for different instances of the
object. This seems to work as long as the "samples" parameter is
increased each time, never decreased. Also I was also drawing the
monofilament along a spline using a macro which does not work well with
the motion blur block. But I think that will be easy to fix.
>
> In that vein, my mom recently bought an Amish-built "jelly cupboard" for my
> wife and me. It looks very much like a "new antique", if I can use that
> term. Anyway, it has revived my love of creating wooden things in POV-Ray.
> I just may have to create a POV-Ray version of it.
>
It's a great direction for you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
