Kenneth wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> 
>>    This image is very nice, but the animation is amazing, almost beyond the
>> AWSOME ROLEX level... Maybe there are flaws, but I cannot spot any, and I
>> tried a lot of times. The whole action is so convincing that it is very
>> difficult to do something more that just enjoying it with the mouth totally
>> open...
> 
> Wow--thank you.  Coming from 'the master,' that is high praise indeed.
> (Honestly, I don't think I could ever hope to match the level of your work.)
> Your's is the 'standard candle' that I--and surely many others--aspire to.
> 
> While working on this scene, a rather 'uncomfortable' idea began to nag me: With
> all of the *cheating* and tricks that I was coming up with--to reduce render
> time--it also became apparent that I was kind of getting further and further
> away from using POV-Ray's core ray-tracing strengths. E.g, transparency, media,
> shadowing--there's very little of each. No AA either. And lots of image_maps,
> with few procedural textures.

I am thinking that your animation casts back to the famous 'Wet Bird' 
image.  With his methods for that picture Gilles threatened some of the 
POV-Ray community's sacred cows about what was somehow cheating and what 
was considered genuine ray tracing methods.  But the image itself was 
just so jaw-dropping and compelling that such fussing got forgotten.

'Limping Back Home' is an exciting piece of work for the compelling look 
of it in its realism, complexity and dynamism.  And you used inventive 
technical methods to accomplish it.  But finally it is the artistry of 
it, the look of it that compels.  If you make people go "WOW!" that is 
what matters in the end.

If Ibe Rasmussen models a church by measuring it in person and then 
placing every brick separately that is a different use of the ray tracer 
with a different, and yet equally compelling, underpinning, conceptually.

Post a reply to this message

Eric Allen <eri### [at] peoplepccom> wrote:

> What's the url to the picture ?

I've only posted it here in the newsgroups (it's visible at the beginning of
this newsthread, BTW). But here's the link...

http://news.povray.org/*/attachment/%3Cweb.4baae0a4649f667b65f302820%40news.povray.org%3E/b29_bomber_1.jpg

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>
> >    This image is very nice, but the animation is amazing...
>
> Wow--thank you.  Coming from 'the master,' that is high praise indeed.
> (Honestly, I don't think I could ever hope to match the level of your work.)
> Your's is the 'standard candle' that I--and surely many others--aspire to.
>

Oops, I didn't mean to leave out Gilles Tran as well (and several others in the
community.) The awesome work of all these masters is greatly inspiring, and
shows what a compelling tool POV-Ray is. I haven't even scratched the surface of
what it can accomplish.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth wrote:
> Eric Allen <eri### [at] peoplepccom> wrote:
> 
>> What's the url to the picture ?
> 
> I've only posted it here in the newsgroups (it's visible at the beginning of
> this newsthread, BTW). But here's the link...
> 
>
http://news.povray.org/*/attachment/%3Cweb.4baae0a4649f667b65f302820%40news.povray.org%3E/b29_bomber_1.jpg
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
Really really nice work, thanks.

-- 
--
Eric

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 16:27, Kenneth wrote:
> > Thanks!  And sorry--I ran into a file-size-limit problem; my first try was with
> > a file size of 4.9MB, which wouldn't fit into the 5MB limit(!)  Ditto trying a
> > 4.5MB file.  But it's there now (a 3.8MB file was a success!) I remember, back
> > when the animation size limit was increased, that there was some 'overhead' of
> > some kind that needed to be taken into account. *Seems* that 4MB is about the
> > practical limit.
>
> I can host it on povray.org in a temp dir if you like. pop me an email if so.
>
> -- Chris

I am trying to locate the owner of this image so I may use it in my novel "They
Called Him Marvin" and the books website. Who should I contact?

Thanks
roger

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Four months in the making! With a cast of thousands! (of objects)
>
>My name is Roger Stark rog### [at] yahoocom I would like to gain the rights from
the owner  of this image to use it
 in my novel "They Called Him Marvin" and on the books website. Who should I contact?
 Thanx
roger

Post a reply to this message

That's actually me :-)

Thanks for asking! You're welcome to use the image, no strings attached. It
would be an honor. I *might* be able to render a larger/higher resolution
version for you, if my scene code and its elements are still completely intact;
I'll have to check on that, and report back here.

If you need to contact me by email, I'll be happy to give you my address.

Cheers!

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> ... You're welcome to use the image, no strings attached. ...

noooo!  make him (Roger) promise that an image of yr image in use/on product
will be posted.  :-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > ... You're welcome to use the image, no strings attached. ...
>
> noooo!  make him (Roger) promise that an image of yr image in use/on product
> will be posted.  :-)
>

Oops, I forgot about that. Yes, definitely.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> I *might* be able to render a larger/higher resolution
> version for you, if my scene code and its elements are still completely intact;
> I'll have to check on that...
>
Yes, I still have all of the elements for a newer render of the image, if you
need it. The still-image I posted in 2010 is a particular frame from an
animation, so I'm currently running some tests to figure out which exact frame I
used.

Post a reply to this message