Am 25.03.2010 um 05:03 schrieb Kenneth:
> Four months in the making! With a cast of thousands! (of objects)
> 
> Here's a representative image from an animation which I've posted over at
> p.b.animations. I set this scene up with animation and motion-blur in mind, so a
> still image doesn't really show it to its best advantage, IMO. Everything was
> done in POV-Ray v3.6.1, including the post-processed motion-blur (none here,
> though.) OK, I used Photoshop for some image_maps, and sPatch for a few mesh
> objects in the B-29--the wings and tail. The airplane isn't perfect; the CSG
> engines still need some work, as does the nose/cockpit. When I started this
> project, I wasn't all that interested in getting the B-29 to be technically
> accurate; I just wanted a 'flying scene.' But one thing led to another...
> 
> My apologies for not posting any WIPs during the process--I kept changing/adding
> things daily, even hourly. Which meant running yet more test animations. (At
> last count, 153 of 'em!) Helped along with LOTS of on/off #if switches for
> testing various things, plus simple 'proxy' objects.
> 
> There are quite a few *cheats* going on here--the clouds, the many reflections
> in the airplane, the cloud shadows on it, the flames. Some to get a particular
> visual effect, but mainly to speed up rendering during the *long* animation
> run--4000 frames over 90 hours, to get 400 final motion-blurred images. No AA
> either (except for this image); but blurring together each 10-image batch helped
> hide the jaggies. The only media in the scene is the black smoke behind the
> flaming engine (and only because I couldn't come up with a good cheat for that!)
> 
> About mid-way through rendering the raw animation, I hit on the rather bizarre
> idea of doing 'alternate-field' renders, again to save time.  That is, using
> Field_Render in the INI file.  That cut the remaining render time in half--with
> a decrease in image quality, of course. For a typical still frame, the results
> are quite ugly (especially with no AA!) But 10 such frames blurred together
> didn't look half-bad, in the context of the quickly-moving animation. (After
> doing a final motion-blurred animation test, I picked out the frames that still
> didn't look very good, then went back and re-rendered the raw frames without
> Field_Render.)
> 
> I'll add more notes as the comments come rolling in. ;-)
> 
A technical wonderful image of a killing machine. But why did you came 
up with the idea to depict a machine killing people?
Best regards
Michael

Post a reply to this message

MichaelJF <fri### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> >
> A technical wonderful image of a killing machine. But why did you came
> up with the idea to depict a machine killing people?

Good question. Honestly, I wasn't thinking of the subject in those terms, but
rather as simply a nice set of objects for a visual composition, to show off the
gleaming B-29 airplane itself. That plane with its shiny aluminum skin has
always fascinated me as a 'beautiful work of the aeronautical designer's art'
(while temporarily overlooking its actual use as a weapon of mass destruction,
particularly regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Then, as I worked on the scene,
I got the idea of adding flames to one of the engines-- for the juxtaposition of
colors more than anything else-- but which does imply a backstory that the
bomber(s) have recently been doing their dirty work. War creates strange and
ugly moral questions, which are always left unanswered at the time, due to
expediency and a developing numbness to horror.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I *might* be able to render a larger/higher resolution
> version for you...

I should probably explain what that means, and why it might be better for your
use, if you're not familiar with computer-graphics images.

The program we use here-- POV-ray-- produces images that are 'resolution
independent'. What that means is, an image of a certain size (in pixels) has a
certain level of detail, limited by the individual pixel sizes themselves. By
simply creating or 'running' a larger image, the 'scene' itself actually shows
MORE detail; it's not just a blown-up and blurrier version of the smaller one.

And for printing-- as for your book-- the larger the image, the better.

My originally-posted image here is 'only' 1024 X 768 pixels, which may not
reproduce well-enough for your needs.

Post a reply to this message