 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
... to a commercial modeler.
I started with POV-Ray well over ten years ago, but have only recently
purchased a commercial modeler (ssk). ABX (revered former "POVver") turned
me onto a similar modeler back in the early 00s, but I wasn't skilled
enough(?) to justify the purchase then.
Looking back, I should have taken his advice sooner. It's been well worth
the price and, after a little practice, I can /almost/ use it with my eyes
closed. I'm officially retired from POV, but still wanted to take my modeler
for a spin with one more entry into the "Geeks Only?" series I started in
07.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'smooth_form.jpg' (276 KB)
Preview of image 'smooth_form.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, cancelling and reposting the same scene under my own name. That way,
I'll be able to find this image as long as the news.povray.org servers are
still up.
-Shay
"Shay" <non### [at] none com> wrote in message news:519359b2@news.povray.org...
> ... to a commercial modeler.
>
> I started with POV-Ray well over ten years ago, but have only recently
> purchased a commercial modeler (ssk). ABX (revered former "POVver") turned
> me onto a similar modeler back in the early 00s, but I wasn't skilled
> enough(?) to justify the purchase then.
>
> Looking back, I should have taken his advice sooner. It's been well worth
> the price and, after a little practice, I can /almost/ use it with my eyes
> closed. I'm officially retired from POV, but still wanted to take my
> modeler
> for a spin with one more entry into the "Geeks Only?" series I started in
> 07.
>
> -Shay
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Henderson:
> Great to see another image from you, Shay - as always, a wonderful mind-
> bending image. :)
> Nekar Xenos:
> Beautiful.
> I find myself thinking that this surface would make a nice level in a
> Tony Hawk game for a skatepark in space....
> ;D
> Sean Day:
> A very interesting shape and a very nice high quality image.
Thank you, all. I've never considered subdivision a good fit for formalist
images due to heavy mesh sizes and errors at extraordinary vertices, but with
ssk I was able to slide points along a subdivision surface (technically a
bicubic patch approximation thereof) to allow more control with fewer vertices
and minimal errors. There are several unintuitive aspects of the control mesh
that would have been difficult to conceptualize without this method of working
backward.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lovely. I find images like this fun to look at, because one's attention is drawn
to wander around it quite involuntarily. Great colour scheme too.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.51948867e52bb6205b7d07940@news.povray.org...
>
> Great colour scheme too.
Such that it is. The image is almost monochrome (and it looks like jpeg
compression made it almost-er monochrome), but there are some pale
compliments that I went to the trouble of uv-mapping on. You noticed, so it
was worth the effort, it seems. Fortunately such things are easier with ssk
than they would otherwise be.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-5-2013 11:47, Shay wrote:
> ... to a commercial modeler.
Still definitely a shaydid* image.
You used to code these kind of shapes by hand, are you still starting
from that?
> I started with POV-Ray well over ten years ago, but have only recently
> purchased a commercial modeler (ssk).
doesn't ring a bell
> ABX (revered former "POVver") turned
> me onto a similar modeler back in the early 00s, but I wasn't skilled
> enough(?) to justify the purchase then.
>
> Looking back, I should have taken his advice sooner. It's been well worth
> the price and, after a little practice, I can /almost/ use it with my eyes
> closed. I'm officially retired from POV, but still wanted to take my
> modeler
> for a spin with one more entry into the "Geeks Only?" series I started in
> 07.
>
> -Shay
*) that is an obscure reference to the use of 'fecit' in art, as well as
a horrible pun.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> You used to code these kind of shapes by hand, are you still starting
> from that?
>
> > I started with POV-Ray well over ten years ago, but have only recently
> > purchased a commercial modeler (ssk).
>
> doesn't ring a bell
YOU ASKED! Thank you. I just needed an "in" to talk a little about my ssk. An
overly-elaborate way to go about bringing up the subject, I know. I though
someone would recognize the name, but, again, I'm probably 20 years too late for
someone to recognize ssk.
Anyway, I have wanted one of these modelers for over ten years. In addition to
satisfying my intense attraction to ubiquity, it reminds me of some very good
times and people from long-ago POV-Ray days.
You can see a picture of my IBM Model(er)-M SSK below.
So, now that my joke has completely flopped, yes, this is entirely hand-coded.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ssk.jpg' (97 KB)
Preview of image 'ssk.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2013 20:25, Shay wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> You used to code these kind of shapes by hand, are you still starting
>> from that?
>>
>>> I started with POV-Ray well over ten years ago, but have only recently
>>> purchased a commercial modeler (ssk).
>>
>> doesn't ring a bell
>
> YOU ASKED! Thank you. I just needed an "in" to talk a little about my ssk. An
> overly-elaborate way to go about bringing up the subject, I know. I though
> someone would recognize the name, but, again, I'm probably 20 years too late for
> someone to recognize ssk.
>
> Anyway, I have wanted one of these modelers for over ten years. In addition to
> satisfying my intense attraction to ubiquity, it reminds me of some very good
> times and people from long-ago POV-Ray days.
>
> You can see a picture of my IBM Model(er)-M SSK below.
I know the keyboard, but I didn't know it had a name.
Probably would not have gotten the joke 20 years ago either, sorry.
> So, now that my joke has completely flopped, yes, this is entirely hand-coded.
That's my boy.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-5-2013 20:25, Shay wrote:
> YOU ASKED! Thank you. I just needed an "in" to talk a little about my ssk. An
> overly-elaborate way to go about bringing up the subject, I know. I though
> someone would recognize the name, but, again, I'm probably 20 years too late for
> someone to recognize ssk.
Oh lol! I should have known :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
> Oh lol! I should have known :-)
>
I thought "use it with my eyes closed" was a good hint. I should have mentioned
how much N-O-I-S-E my modeler makes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
