For your enjoyment today :-)

In between things, I have been working on this scene. Radiosity is not
optimal here, but that has to wait for later.

Two versions of the same scene are given. The difference is in the crackle
function used for the (isosurface) desert floor.

The scene has been primarily inspired by the cover of a book that has been
sitting on my shelf for almost 40 years (see:
http://www.klaus-johansen.dk/?page_id=138 ), and illustrating the short
story O moon of my delight. It was time for me to give it my own
interpretation.

The girl figure is a Poser figure of course (Kate); you will recognize of
course Zeeger's greebles in the background.

My question is about the pylons. I don't remember where I got the code, nor
who wrote. If somebody recognize them (pylon.pov; 2002) please let me know
so that I can acknowledge properly.

For those interested, here follows the crackle and isosurface code:

//Start code
//------------------------------------------------------------------Isosurface/Height_field
desert - start
//First crackle function, like broken-up slabs of stone:
#declare F_crackle_solid =
function {
  pigment {
    crackle solid
    //crackle form <-1.0, 1.0, 0.0>
    color_map {
      [ 0.00  rgb 0 ]
      [ 0.10  rgb 0 ]
      [ 0.10  rgb 1 ]
      [ 0.50  rgb 0.5 ]
      [ 0.90  rgb 1 ]
      [ 0.90  rgb 0 ]
      [ 1.00  rgb 0 ]
    }
    warp {
      turbulence <0.1, 0.1, 0.1>
      octaves 5
      omega 0.5
      lambda 2
    }
    frequency 100
    ramp_wave
    scale 0.1
  }
}

//Second crackle function, like dessication cracks:
#declare F_crackle_form =
function {
  pigment {
    //crackle solid
    crackle form <-1.0, 1.0, 0.0>
    color_map {
      [ 0.00  rgb 0 ]
      [ 0.10  rgb 0 ]
      [ 0.10  rgb 1 ]
      [ 0.50  rgb 0.9 ]
      [ 0.90  rgb 1 ]
      [ 0.90  rgb 0 ]
      [ 1.00  rgb 0 ]
    }
    warp {
      turbulence <0.1, 0.1, 0.1>
      octaves 5
      omega 0.5
      lambda 2
    }
    frequency 0.7
    poly_wave 0.5
    scale 0.1
  }
}

//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//Based on a Bruno Cabasson example:
#macro IsoHF2(fn_Terrain,TERRAIN_SIZE_X,TERRAIN_SIZE_Z,TERRAIN_HEIGHT,RES)
#declare ISO_Terrain =
isosurface {
    //function {y - TERRAIN_HEIGHT*fn_Terrain(x/TERRAIN_SIZE_X, 0,
z/TERRAIN_SIZE_Z)}
    function {y - TERRAIN_HEIGHT*fn_Terrain(x, 0, z)}
    max_gradient 5
    contained_by {box {<-TERRAIN_SIZE_X, -0.01, -TERRAIN_SIZE_Z>,
<TERRAIN_SIZE_X, TERRAIN_HEIGHT, TERRAIN_SIZE_Z>}}
}

#declare HF_Terrain =
height_field {
    function RES, RES {fn_Terrain ((x-0.5)*(TERRAIN_SIZE_X*2), 0,
(y-0.5)*(TERRAIN_SIZE_Z*2))}//the function is reduced proportionally to
terrain scale
    smooth
    translate <-0.5, 0, -0.5>
    scale <2*TERRAIN_SIZE_X, TERRAIN_HEIGHT, 2*TERRAIN_SIZE_Z>
}

#end //of macro
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

//Choose here between the two crackle functions:
//#declare fn_Terrain = function (x, y, z) {F_crackle_solid (x, 0, z).red}
#declare fn_Terrain = function (x, y, z) {F_crackle_form (x, 0, z).red}

IsoHF2(fn_Terrain, 100, 100, 0.005, 1000)

#declare CrackledSurf ace =
//as an isosurface:
object {ISO_Terrain texture {mytexture} translate -50*z}
//as a height_field:
//object {HF_Terrain texture {mytexture} translate -50*z}
//------------------------------------------------------------------Isosurface/Height_field
desert - end
// end of code

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Age of Innocence_01.jpg' (382 KB)

Preview of image 'Age of Innocence_01.jpg'

This is version #2

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Age of Innocence_02.jpg' (382 KB)

Preview of image 'Age of Innocence_02.jpg'

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> This is version #2
>
> Thomas

I like the second one better. The broken ground in the first is too even in
depth and does not look real (?).
I think that you have captured the ambience of the painting but I would like
to see the greebles thingy higher in the sky. I also think that Kate should

it.
One other thing I noticed, I did a blink comparison of the two images and


Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.456ab90288cc0edaf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
> I like the second one better. The broken ground in the first is too even 
> in
> depth and does not look real (?).

Yes, also my choice. I was interested in experimenting with different 
crackles and see what they would do.

> I think that you have captured the ambience of the painting but I would 
> like
> to see the greebles thingy higher in the sky. I also think that Kate 
> should
> have a stick in her hand to roll the hoop or "gird and cleet" as we call
> it.

In truth, I did not want to capture exactly the painting, only use it as a 
basis for my own ideas. So, there is a familiarity, but both works have 
further nothing to do with each other.
Personally, I prefer the greeble megastructures as they are. In my view, 
they are gigantic constructions on the ground but far away.
Yes the stick could be an addition. However, It would suggest to much a 
pre-planned play, while I want to suggest the girl to have come on the hoops 
by chance and starting to roll them for fun.

> One other thing I noticed, I did a blink comparison of the two images and
> there is a difference in the shadow of Kate's left leg.

Correct. That is due to some different radiosity settings. In between, I had 
started to change those.

Thanks for commenting!!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>
> In truth, I did not want to capture exactly the painting, only use it as a
> basis for my own ideas. So, there is a familiarity, but both works have
> further nothing to do with each other.
> Personally, I prefer the greeble megastructures as they are. In my view,
> they are gigantic constructions on the ground but far away.
> Yes the stick could be an addition. However, It would suggest to much a
> pre-planned play, while I want to suggest the girl to have come on the hoops
> by chance and starting to roll them for fun.
>

Maybe it is a cultural thing but a cleet is a necessity otherwise there is
no skill involved and that is essential in play. But like the other

Going back to the density of your images using 3.7. The mega-structures look
very different when I adjust the Gamma/Brightness/Contrast. It changes the

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.456af1ad88cc0edaf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>>
>> In truth, I did not want to capture exactly the painting, only use it as 
>> a
>> basis for my own ideas. So, there is a familiarity, but both works have
>> further nothing to do with each other.
>> Personally, I prefer the greeble megastructures as they are. In my view,
>> they are gigantic constructions on the ground but far away.
>> Yes the stick could be an addition. However, It would suggest to much a
>> pre-planned play, while I want to suggest the girl to have come on the 
>> hoops
>> by chance and starting to roll them for fun.
>>
>

> Maybe it is a cultural thing but a cleet is a necessity otherwise there is
> no skill involved and that is essential in play. But like the other
> comments, it's your image :-)

Yes...when you want specifically to play the gird and cleet game. I remember 
however, to have often played with hoops and old (bicycle) tyres without a 
cleet, just because they were in the right place on the right time. The fun 
was not less :-)  (not much)
But the real thing was something else, although it was not played much 
anymore in the 50's. Especially in France (where I grew up) I do not 
remember having seen them, except in old images typically from the beginning 
of the 20th century (little boys in sailor costumes...)

> Going back to the density of your images using 3.7. The mega-structures 
> look
> very different when I adjust the Gamma/Brightness/Contrast. It changes the
> whole atmosphere. I've only got M$ Photo Editor at work I particularly
> liked the image after applying a "chalk and charcoal" effect.

Hold on! These images were rendered with megapov, not 3.7! Here the 
atmosphere has to remain filtered. However, playing around with 
Gamma/Brightness/Contrast, or any other effect filter, will give you 
interesting things. I tried for instance a very low gamma, high contrast and 
low brightness. Gave a sort of moonlit scene.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> Yes...when you want specifically to play the gird and cleet game. I remember
> however, to have often played with hoops and old (bicycle) tyres without a
> cleet, just because they were in the right place on the right time. The fun
> was not less :-)  (not much)
> But the real thing was something else, although it was not played much
> anymore in the 50's. Especially in France (where I grew up) I do not
> remember having seen them, except in old images typically from the beginning
> of the 20th century (little boys in sailor costumes...)
>

made of metal with an eye and connected to the hoop by a small link. This
made it harder to run with it.

>
> Hold on! These images were rendered with megapov, not 3.7! Here the
> atmosphere has to remain filtered. However, playing around with
> Gamma/Brightness/Contrast, or any other effect filter, will give you
> interesting things. I tried for instance a very low gamma, high contrast and
> low brightness. Gave a sort of moonlit scene.
>

It is fun to change the settings

BTW congratulations for your IRTC placing

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.456b030788cc0edaf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>>
> In the West coast of Scotland in the 50's we played with them. The cleet 
> was
> made of metal with an eye and connected to the hoop by a small link. This
> made it harder to run with it.

Interesting how cultural features (children's games after all are also 
cultural features) develop differently in different parts of the world. I 
was just thinking also about the variation used in subsahara Africa using 
tin boxes attached to a piece of wood. This whole process mimics, as it 
were, the process of natural evolution, with independent changes following 
geographic isolation. Very Darwinian :-)
>
>>
>> Hold on! These images were rendered with megapov, not 3.7! [....]
>>
> It looked similar to "Tek's sea revisited" so I assumed .
> It is fun to change the settings

What worries me is the 'aspect' of the images on your side. Here, they look 
normally well-contrasted in the fore- and middlegrounds, in opposition to 
3.7 renders that are uniformely washed-out under certain conditions..

>
> BTW congratulations for your IRTC placing

Thank you! I was quite content with the result :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:

> Interesting how cultural features (children's games after all are also
> cultural features)

Very much so IMO

>develop differently in different parts of the world. I
> was just thinking also about the variation used in subsahara Africa using
> tin boxes attached to a piece of wood.



> This whole process mimics, as it
> were, the process of natural evolution, with independent changes following
> geographic isolation. Very Darwinian :-)

Are you looking to start an argument because I thing it is an Intelligent
Design issue :-)
Seriously is it not more to do with the availability of local recourses?



http://www.fairlieburne.co.uk/99Appendix.htm


> What worries me is the 'aspect' of the images on your side. Here, they look
> normally well-contrasted in the fore- and middlegrounds, in opposition to
> 3.7 renders that are uniformely washed-out under certain conditions..
>
It is difficult to compare images remotely and I am using a Compaq S720


images look quite light. But then you have a low sun and my preferences are
probably different from yours.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> schreef in bericht 
news:web.456c072588cc0edaf1cb1e660@news.povray.org...
>
>>develop differently in different parts of the world. I
>> was just thinking also about the variation used in subsahara Africa using
>> tin boxes attached to a piece of wood.
>
> Don't know this, is it a running game?
From the little I have seen, looks like both running and just pushing the 
tin around, but there may be a deeper meaning behind it. Again, this is not 
from personnal experience but from photographs and documentaries where this 
appears sometimes.

>> This whole process mimics, as it
>> were, the process of natural evolution, with independent changes 
>> following
>> geographic isolation. Very Darwinian :-)
>
> Are you looking to start an argument because I thing it is an Intelligent
> Design issue :-)
Great! No. No argument here. The comparison in any case is wrong because of 
the very controversial status of social darwinism. I like to hustle things a 
bit sometimes. Not very scientific, I admit, but fun to do nonetheless.

> Seriously is it not more to do with the availability of local recourses?
> Here is a link to children's games from the 20's and 30's most were still
> played in the 50'
>
> http://www.fairlieburne.co.uk/99Appendix.htm

You are right. It has much to do with availability of local recourses.
Nice site! Yes, some of them seem to come back regularly, like  bools in 
particular.
Chuckies!!! We called those 'osselets' (small bones) and they resembled 
indeed little finger bones, but made of plastic (no good! too light) or 
metal (excellent!), four were white, one was red.
Tic Tac: Oh yes!
I think Hurlies and Bogies resemble that example I cited from subsahara 
Africa after all.
Beds: Was not really a girls game where I lived, and was played with 8 
squares in the series: 1-1-1-2-1-2.

> It is difficult to compare images remotely and I am using a Compaq S720
> monitor at work (it's so so). Fred's 'Sphere on checked plane' looks very
> dark and Skip Talbot's in 'Penguin Paradise' looks just right. Your latest
> images look quite light. But then you have a low sun and my preferences 
> are
> probably different from yours.

Ok then. Nothing to worry about. I see them the same way. Yes, mine are 
indeed a bit lighter and that's truly a personnal taste.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message