On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:05:17 +0200, Sean Day <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:

> 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.

If you declare the points of the L-System branches, then you could use  
those points as a starting position for trace() and use a direction vector  
in the direction of the rock (related to the L-System).

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

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 ;-)

#function F_Bumps=pigment{bumps}#end
#if(rand(R)< F_Bumps(x,y,z).x)

Post a reply to this message

Sean Day wrote:
> 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 ;-)

I mean something like the code below. It places objects
in random positions in a square from (-1,-1) to (1,1) but
also uses a "die roll" for each placement. The function
used should yield values from 0 to 1 based on position.
In the sample I use an f_boxed (to taper out at the edge),
multiplied by f_bozo (to give some structured variation),
and a power just to increase "contrast".


#include "rand.inc"
#include "functions.inc"

global_settings
{
   assumed_gamma 1.0
}

camera
{
   location  <0.0, 1.5,  0.0>
   look_at   <0.0, 0.0,  0.0>
   angle 90
}

#declare NUM = 20000;

#declare f_distribution = function
{
   pow(f_boxed(x,y,z)*f_bozo(x*5, y*5, z*5),2)
}

#declare R = seed(42);

#declare I = 0;

// Just to visualize the probability in the background
plane
{
   y,0
   pigment
   {
     function {f_distribution(x,y,z)}
   }
   finish {ambient 1}
}

// Actual placement
union
{

#for (I,0,NUM,1)
   #declare X = 2*rand(R)-1;
   #declare Y = 2*rand(R)-1;
   #if (rand(R) < f_distribution(X,0,Y))
     sphere {<X,0,Y>, 0.005}
   #end
#end

   pigment {color rgb <1,0,0>}
   finish  {ambient 1}
}

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'testplacement.png' (60 KB)

Preview of image 'testplacement.png'

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:54:59 +0200, Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:

>  I'd like to see a high-quality render to get a better idea of the  
> potential.

I am still experimenting and adjusting the macro, so I don't have a copy  
to re-render at the same settings. Here is a render with a few large paint  
blobs.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'artists - copy (9).png' (1083 KB)

Preview of image 'artists - copy (9).png'

Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Sean Day wrote:
>> Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>
> I mean something like the code below.

Thanks a lot Chrisian, this is a great example, have been playing with 
it a bit using different functions and I prefer using f_spherical to 
f_boxed but also it is interesting with some of the more complex 
shapes/functions like f_comma etc.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:54:59 +0200, Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:

>  I'd like to see a high-quality render to get a better idea of the  
> potential.  -Shay
>
This is at a higher resolution, but the paint was too sparse. Now it looks  
a lot like a 3d version of Pollock ;)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'artists - copy (10).jpg' (981 KB)

Preview of image 'artists - copy (10).jpg'

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

> >
> This is at a higher resolution, but the paint was too sparse. Now it looks
> a lot like a 3d version of Pollock ;)
>
Those paint-stroke drips look *amazing*, especially in close-up. Your technique
just keeps getting better and better!

The poor jazz men--they've been turned into a complete abstraction ;-)

BTW, did you see the recent news about the sale of a Jackson Pollock painting?
One of his drip paintings sold at auction for something like $47 million
dollars!! It set a new record for his work, I believe.  So keep improving your
technique--there's lots of money to be made!  :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:14:52 +0200, Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> The poor jazz men--they've been turned into a complete abstraction ;-)
>
;D

> BTW, did you see the recent news about the sale of a Jackson Pollock  
> painting?
> One of his drip paintings sold at auction for something like $47 million
> dollars!! It set a new record for his work, I believe.  So keep  
> improving your
> technique--there's lots of money to be made!  :-P
>
>
Yes I heard about that. I like Pollock's idea, but I prefer Dali's works.  
Maybe if I were to see a Pollock close-up I would change my mind...?

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 17/05/2013 6:31 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Maybe if I were to see a Pollock close-up I would change my mind...?

I have and it drove me the other way. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> This is at a higher resolution, but the paint was too sparse. Now it looks
> a lot like a 3d version of Pollock ;)
>

Hmmm. This need something, IMO.

I've heard it said many times that "all art is abstract" because no painting is
an exact copy of its subject. This, of course, isn't true of artists like
Pollock or Motherwell who painted paint. Thier works are, in fact, the *most*
literal.

Your digital art could use a literal (meta, if you prefer) aspect. Perhaps a
shift in perspective with paint-scene lighting drastically different from
source-scene lighting?

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message