All stones are now isosufaces (all different i.e No #declares). Lots of
work still to do.
If you think the bluestones (the small greyish ones) look a bit wonky,
that's deliberate.

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'djrebirth_1.jpg' (123 KB)

Preview of image 'djrebirth_1.jpg'

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> All stones are now isosufaces (all different i.e No #declares). Lots of
> work still to do.
> If you think the bluestones (the small greyish ones) look a bit wonky,
> that's deliberate.
>


look like large weetabixs.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Nice render! Looking good. But I think the large stones are a bit too rough 
and should have a more greyish texture. But then, it is a wip.

This may be a bit off-topic, but I cannot help but wonder how stonehenge 
really did look when it was still "in use". I really doubt that there were 
just the stones and nothing else - there should have been huts or primitive 
tents and other things... even priests need to live somewhere.

How did the surrounding landscape look like? Nowadays it is green lawn amid 
fields of wheat (or whatever corn). But was this so when the place was 
built? Or where there woods? Do you have any idea? Does anybody?

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a5dde83@news.povray.org...
> This may be a bit off-topic, but I cannot help but wonder how stonehenge 
> really did look when it was still "in use". I really doubt that there were 
> just the stones and nothing else - there should have been huts or 
> primitive tents and other things... even priests need to live somewhere.
>
> How did the surrounding landscape look like? Nowadays it is green lawn 
> amid fields of wheat (or whatever corn). But was this so when the place 
> was built? Or where there woods? Do you have any idea? Does anybody?
>
Yes, dwelling quarters have been found, even quite extensive iirc. 
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge shows recent work done 
on the site and new ideas about the possible use of the monument.

As far as I know, the landscape looked much different from today. More woods 
certainly, but with open clearings for fields and meadows. However, the wood 
extension is probably difficult to trace exactly. Some conclusions can be 
drawn from pollen concentrations in ancient soils but that does not always 
say much about the real extent, and much of the landscape has been 
overhauled in later centuries of course.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thank you for the link. Quite interesting!

Last time I was in Stonehenge was 16 years ago. Strange tricks memory plays 
us - I remembered the stones to be more dark-grey.

Well, that trip was quite a disaster. What do you need if you go for a trip 
to the UK? Yes, laryngitis! The one and only I had in my whole life. Couldn't 
speak a single word the whole 14 days. And my camera decided to stop working 
the first day -  all photos taken except the first few were not exposed to 
sunlight at all - which I discovered on development of the films back home - 
so no images of that vacation, including Stonehenge. Just my bad luck. the 
pre digital era sometimes really did suck ;-(

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> schrieb im 
Newsbeitrag news:4a5de425$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> schreef in 
> bericht news:4a5dde83@news.povray.org...
>> This may be a bit off-topic, but I cannot help but wonder how stonehenge 
>> really did look when it was still "in use". I really doubt that there 
>> were just the stones and nothing else - there should have been huts or 
>> primitive tents and other things... even priests need to live somewhere.
>>
>> How did the surrounding landscape look like? Nowadays it is green lawn 
>> amid fields of wheat (or whatever corn). But was this so when the place 
>> was built? Or where there woods? Do you have any idea? Does anybody?
>>
> Yes, dwelling quarters have been found, even quite extensive iirc. 
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge shows recent work 
> done on the site and new ideas about the possible use of the monument.
>
> As far as I know, the landscape looked much different from today. More 
> woods certainly, but with open clearings for fields and meadows. However, 
> the wood extension is probably difficult to trace exactly. Some 
> conclusions can be drawn from pollen concentrations in ancient soils but 
> that does not always say much about the real extent, and much of the 
> landscape has been overhauled in later centuries of course.
>
> Thomas
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote in message 
news:4a5de425$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> schreef in 
> bericht news:4a5dde83@news.povray.org...
>> This may be a bit off-topic, but I cannot help but wonder how stonehenge 
>> really did look when it was still "in use". I really doubt that there 
>> were just the stones and nothing else - there should have been huts or 
>> primitive tents and other things... even priests need to live somewhere.
>>
>> How did the surrounding landscape look like? Nowadays it is green lawn 
>> amid fields of wheat (or whatever corn). But was this so when the place 
>> was built? Or where there woods? Do you have any idea? Does anybody?
>>
> Yes, dwelling quarters have been found, even quite extensive iirc. 
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge shows recent work 
> done on the site and new ideas about the possible use of the monument.
>
> As far as I know, the landscape looked much different from today. More 
> woods certainly, but with open clearings for fields and meadows. However, 
> the wood extension is probably difficult to trace exactly. Some 
> conclusions can be drawn from pollen concentrations in ancient soils but 
> that does not always say much about the real extent, and much of the 
> landscape has been overhauled in later centuries of course.
>
> Thomas
>

I did a fair bit of reading yesterday prompted by this thread. Stonehenge is 
certainly just a small part of a big and complex set of structures in the 
area including areas of habitation, barrows for burying the dead and large 
enclosed areas that seem to be set aside for activities that nobody is quite 
sure about (though plenty of different theories are available).

If I picked up the right message from the work described on the site Thomas 
linked to it looks like the area may have supported a community of about 
2000 people, probably living off a mixture of hunting and both arable and 
livestock farming. There also seems to be evidence that people gathered 
there from far afield to celebrate important dates in the calendar. Even the 
Welsh guy who sold them the stones probably got an invite.

I've read that nobody is currently sure about the precise vegetation in this 
area that long ago and it seems likely Stonehenge was developed during a 
period of quite rapid transition from hunting in the woods to farming. The 
first phase of ditches and banks were being built when large parts of 
England were being deforested and it's quite possible that these earthworks 
were initially around the edges of clearings, surrounded by forest or 
woodland and early field systems.

In searching the Internet I came across an artists impression of what it 
might have looked like if the area had still been forested when the stones 
were built: 
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/06/30/stonehenge-as-a-woodland-site/

Pure conjecture of course, but it makes a pretty picture. Even if the 
woodlands were never quite that close to the stones it seems likely to me 
that there would have still been some nearby woodlands and that the 
landscape wouldn't have been anywhere near as devoid of plant life as it is 
today.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> All stones are now isosufaces (all different i.e No #declares). Lots of
> work still to do.

Yup. For instance, you need much less ambient.

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote in message 
news:4a5e0a0e$1@news.povray.org...
> Thank you for the link. Quite interesting!
>
> Last time I was in Stonehenge was 16 years ago. Strange tricks memory 
> plays us - I remembered the stones to be more dark-grey.
>

Is this more how you remember them?
http://www.thelighthousewebsite.com/userimages/stonehenge.jpg

I think you need a sunrise and some color filters on your camera to get them 
looking orange.  :-)

Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> In searching the Internet I came across an artists impression of what it
> might have looked like if the area had still been forested when the stones
> were built:
> http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/06/30/stonehenge-as-a-woodland-site/

Beautiful picture, and an interesting thought. In such a setting, it would seem
perfectly fitting that the stones were much better finished on the inside than
on the outside. If stonehenge stood in the open, I'd have expected the outside
to be considered about equally important as the inside.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a5e196873084296a95afc190@news.povray.org...
> "Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
>> In searching the Internet I came across an artists impression of what it
>> might have looked like if the area had still been forested when the 
>> stones
>> were built:
>> http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/06/30/stonehenge-as-a-woodland-site/
>
> Beautiful picture, and an interesting thought. In such a setting, it would 
> seem
> perfectly fitting that the stones were much better finished on the inside 
> than
> on the outside. If stonehenge stood in the open, I'd have expected the 
> outside
> to be considered about equally important as the inside.
>

Ah! Well I think it's difficult to be sure how well the stones were 
originally finished.

They were knocked about a good bit when tipped over and there's no certainty 
that the reconstructions from the early part of the last century even got 
the stones in the right place, let alone the right way round. And people 
have been chipping souvenirs off the stones to take home with them since 
well before Roman times, so a lot of surface stone may have dissappeared 
over the last 4000 years.

Chris B.

Post a reply to this message