"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:31:39 +0200, Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
>
> Added fog and sky. Using a different stroke direction and more strokes.
>

I think I still like image (5) better. It's the paint strokes--they look much
more like natural drips there, quite beautiful. In image (6) the drips look too
directional IMO. My very first impression of it was that the white areas now
look like...snow. Not sure why I think that (an optical illusion?), but it
struck me that way. Just my two-cents' worth.  Beauty is in 'the eye of the
beholder' of course; *everyone* will have a different opinion of one sort or
another. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 May 2013 09:12:48 +0200, Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg>  
wrote:

> Surrealism! A touch of Yves Tanguy.

Thanks :)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

s.day wrote:

> This has given me a good idea for my moss placement, the shape of each clump of
> moss was a bit square for my liking (as I just used trace over a rectangular
> area), didn't think about using an image to place the moss.

you could try using a bozo / noise pattern for the probability
(instead of fixed probability over rectangle)

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth wrote:

> I've been giving some thought to an idea: a built-in POV-ray 'tool' that uses a
> greatly-modified combination of trace and eval_pigment, to actually find the
> color that has *already been applied* to an object in 3-D space.

I think on SDL level this can only be solved if all assignments
of pigments to objects and all transformations of objects are made
through macros of your eval system.

OTOH internally POV-Ray should already have all data available after
an object including its transformations are parsed, so it should be
feasible in principle to implement an eval_object_pigment function
within POV-Ray itself that honors the transformations.

However, this begs the question what the pigment of an object
actually is (for example if layered textures have been applied).
I think the normal case is that the contribution of each texture
including finish / lighting will be merged. So it may not always
be uniquely defined what the "pigment" should be be.

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> Added fog and sky. Using a different stroke direction and more strokes.

Oh man,

this is developing into something really original!
It is remindful of a 3D version of Gena Onukhov's
"http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2005-08-31/gomnmlsm.jpg".
Please try to apply different stroke types and it can be really outstanding.

Phantastic innovation! I'll apply it on some of my own images, as soon I'll find
time (beside family and company)...
Please go further!!

Norbert Kern

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:

>
> However, this begs the question what the pigment of an object
> actually is (for example if layered textures have been applied).
> I think the normal case is that the contribution of each texture
> including finish / lighting will be merged. So it may not always
> be uniquely defined what the "pigment" should be be.

Yes, your right about all of the complications involved. In fact, the more
deeply I think about the ramifications of my idea, the more complex it becomes:
not just the 'logical' way of going about it, but more importantly, what 'the
color on the object' actually means! Should the color be just the basic rgb
components and nothing more? (That was my original simplistic idea, ignoring
even the pigment's finish attributes.) Or should it be the 'sum total' of all of
the ray-trace computations, including translucency, lighting, radiosity,
shadowing etc.? If the latter, then that creates *another* conundrum--namely,
the part of my idea about the ray-trace ray being shot from an arbitrary point
in 3D space, rather than from the *camera* location. The resulting values for
the 'color point' that's found might be quite arbitrary--intimately based on the
particular geometry of the set-up. (Just like a repositioned camera during a
typical render.)

At this point, I would vote for just the BASIC rgb color components being found
and returned (and without any transparency component, or even lighting.)  But
it's looking like my idea needs a SIGGRAPH research paper! If only to disprove
it all.

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> you could try using a bozo / noise pattern for the probability
> (instead of fixed probability over rectangle)

I like that idea, not sure how to do it though ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:40:23 +0200, s.day <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
>
>
>> Great idea, have you tried making the blobs thinner in the x scale or
>> longer in
>> the y to make it look more like a brush stroke?
>
> Yes, I am busy with something like that. I keep tracing more blobs in
> the specified direction plus a bit of randomness, but at the moment it
> tends to look like a scene from The Thing
> =8'S
>
>> This has given me a good idea for my moss placement, the shape of each
>> clump of
>> moss was a bit square for my liking (as I just used trace over a
>> rectangular
>> area), didn't think about using an image to place the moss. I will
>> give that a
>> go.
>
> How about an L-system with random branches?
> I've never had much success with L-Systems though.
>

I think an L-system would work well for growing the moss plants 
themselves not so sure about using it for positioning them on the rocks 
though. Still could be worth investigating.

Post a reply to this message

Consistent abstraction in CG is nearly impossible. Has any CG artist 
successfully peopled a scene with non-intrusive abstractions of humans 
(think Piranesi's or [Houston artist] Robyn O'Neil's tiny people)? Abstract 
people can be created, but they're never (that I've seen) abstracted in the 
same style as their environments. I'd almost say cartoons pull this off, but 
cartoon characters are more stylized than abstracted. That is, cartoon 
characters still have to be constructed in the same way a realistic CG human 
must be constructed.

If we're stuck starting with fully-detailed human models and working 
backward, then techniques like this one may be the only way forward. I'd 
like to see a high-quality render to get a better idea of the potential. 
Looks a bit like a creature effect from the 80s, but that's a good fit for 
some things.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

>
> this is developing into something really original!
> It is remindful of a 3D version of Gena Onukhov's
> "http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2005-08-31/gomnmlsm.jpg".

Oh, I really like that image. I had not seen it before.

Post a reply to this message