 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-11-2017 7:24, Kenneth wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>>
>> This site http://www.antonygormley.com/ gives an excellent overview of
>> his work.
>>
>
> Some of his 'rectilinear'/block sculptures there instantly recalled a POV-Ray
> scene I made years ago and posted...
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.4bd33d559bbfa54fae92d9930@news.povray.org%3E/
>
> ....specifically the two slab-like objects on the left and right. I must have
> been 'channeling' Gormley!
>
>
Indeed. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-11-2017 14:30, Fractracer wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> Good job! The man seems to disappear.
> Maybe you should add a background, to compose an image in the surrealist style.
>
For the time being this remains just an empty test landscape ;-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>
>
> --
> Thomas
These are fun - and so comparatively easy to make compared to other types of
scenes!
I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
and got 1.4%.
I like the [rusted] wire boxes :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-11-2017 14:03, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> And better yet, using VRand_In_Obj()
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> These are fun - and so comparatively easy to make compared to other types of
> scenes!
Yes, one has no merit at all :-)
>
> I was wondering what your "yield" was in terms of successful placement of random
> points inside. I did a few real quick experiments, and it seemed like I was
> getting _very_ sparse coverage. I did a (Success/TotalTests)*100 calculation,
> and got 1.4%.
I don't know about yield. Using VRand_In_Obj() that should be 100%,
shouldn't it? Anyway, I just increase or decrease the number of objects
and judge the result.
My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
> I like the [rusted] wire boxes :)
>
Me too.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and legs
> compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated. So, my
> idea was to use an additional test: function {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)}
> provided by Christian Froeschlin some years ago, and thus concentrate
> the objects more towards the periphery than towards the centre. However,
> I am not sure what I am doing and I have difficulty scaling this to the
> correct proportions of the body. Any suggestions there would help me.
>
Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give yo
more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
>>
>>
>
> Me too.
>
Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 10:31, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>
>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and
>> legs compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated.
>> So, my idea was to use an additional test: function
>> {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)} provided by Christian Froeschlin some years
>> ago, and thus concentrate the objects more towards the periphery than
>> towards the centre. However, I am not sure what I am doing and I have
>> difficulty scaling this to the correct proportions of the body. Any
>> suggestions there would help me.
>>
>
> Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give yo
> more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
That would be one option indeed. I keep that for when all else fails. ;-)
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>
> Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
>
Oh yes, and blobs (reflective or not) too.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 11:43, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-11-2017 10:31, Stephen wrote:
>> On 21/11/2017 07:54, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My main focus now is to get a "better" (?) coverage of the arms and
>>> legs compared to the body. They seem to be more sparsely populated.
>>> So, my idea was to use an additional test: function
>>> {pow(f_boxed(x,y,z),2)} provided by Christian Froeschlin some years
>>> ago, and thus concentrate the objects more towards the periphery than
>>> towards the centre. However, I am not sure what I am doing and I have
>>> difficulty scaling this to the correct proportions of the body. Any
>>> suggestions there would help me.
>>>
>>
>> Could you split your analysis into body part groups? That might give
>> yo more control over the sizes of the "filler" boxes.
>
> That would be one option indeed. I keep that for when all else fails. ;-)
>
It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Me too.
>>>
>>
>> Reflective spheres would be interesting, I think. :-)
>>
>
> Oh yes, and blobs (reflective or not) too.
>
Blobs! yes. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-11-2017 12:54, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
>> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>
> Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
>
>
Poseray is your friend
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/11/2017 12:17, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-11-2017 12:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On 21/11/2017 11:53, Stephen wrote:
>>> It sounds like a lot of work. ;-)
>>
>> Depending on the model and how many groups it is exported as.
>>
>>
>
> Poseray is your friend
>
Poser is your friend's friend. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
