 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, The dark color of the figures on the light, hazy background, and the
elongated proportions of the figures combined with the transparent/mesh
construction all give the same impression as the style of the Three Brothers as
drawn for the animated movie scene.
I like it very much, and you should do more!
(as applies to all of your work :) )
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '3brothers1.png' (207 KB)
Preview of image '3brothers1.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> Well, The dark color of the figures on the light, hazy background, and the
> elongated proportions of the figures combined with the transparent/mesh
> construction all give the same impression as the style of the Three Brothers as
> drawn for the animated movie scene.
>
> I like it very much, and you should do more!
> (as applies to all of your work :) )
Ok - I understand - a shudder runs down my back...
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Wow, that is really creepy!
>
> I was going to make it my desktop background, but I don't really like
> the river rocks.
>
>
> Mike
A very good argument -
several years before I stopped working on an image because of the disturbing
river rock distribution...
Suggestions?
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'loth revised.jpg' (646 KB)
Preview of image 'loth revised.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/10/2018 07:58 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> the style of the Three Brothers
I looked at the picture before reading the text and that was exactly
what I thought of. Well done.
--
dik
Rendered 920576 of 921600 pixels (99%)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2018 9:25 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Wow, that is really creepy!
>>
>> I was going to make it my desktop background, but I don't really like
>> the river rocks.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> A very good argument -
>
> several years before I stopped working on an image because of the disturbing
> river rock distribution...
>
> Suggestions?
>
>
> Norbert
>
The only thing I can think of is to bury them a little deeper in the
mud. Dunno.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2018 10:18 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 2/10/2018 9:25 PM, Norbert Kern wrote:
>> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Wow, that is really creepy!
>>>
>>> I was going to make it my desktop background, but I don't really like
>>> the river rocks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> A very good argument -
>>
>> several years before I stopped working on an image because of the
>> disturbing
>> river rock distribution...
>>
>> Suggestions?
>>
>>
>> Norbert
>>
>
> The only thing I can think of is to bury them a little deeper in the
> mud. Dunno.
>
>
> Mike
And make it so that the stones don't always closely follow the contours
of the land. A lot of rocks may have been laying there below the dirt
before there was a river there to expose them.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-2-2018 23:07, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Hello,
>
> here is a way to modificate meshes of humans or animals to creepy figures.
>
> After finding a random point on a mesh surface another trace was done inside the
> mesh. A box was then placed between the two points.
>
> Each of the two figures consists of 990.000 boxes.
>
> Texture uses a proximity technique described in
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.59d38d1358cfc649f2ea585a0%40news.povray.org%3E/.
>
> Background is from Margus Ramst.
> Scene uses assumed_gamma 1 as in my last pictures.
>
> Norbert
>
This is... creepy! Very well done indeed. I need to ponder the method:
you choose a random point /on/ the mesh surface, then, from that random
point, you traced /inside/ the mesh to the opposite side I suppose, but
in what direction? randomly? along the surface normal at that point? I
am a bit lost I confess.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2018 08:03, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> This is... creepy! Very well done indeed.
Yes, very nice indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-2-2018 3:25, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Wow, that is really creepy!
>>
>> I was going to make it my desktop background, but I don't really like
>> the river rocks.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> A very good argument -
>
> several years before I stopped working on an image because of the disturbing
> river rock distribution...
>
> Suggestions?
>
>
> Norbert
>
I think that the problem is not so much with the rocks themselves as
with the combination rocks/"mud". Especially the last is not very
credible in this image and hesitates between a wet, rock-like, material,
sand, and plastic. The total has a pudding aspects.
One solution would be to increase the (horizontal) layering of the "mud"
and decrease its texture's graininess. Also, there either is too much
mud and too little rocks in the combination, or too little mud and too
much rocks. You can go either way.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> This is... creepy! Very well done indeed. I need to ponder the method:
> you choose a random point /on/ the mesh surface, then, from that random
> point, you traced /inside/ the mesh to the opposite side I suppose, but
> in what direction? randomly? along the surface normal at that point? I
> am a bit lost I confess.
>
> --
> Thomas
I used the surface normal.
A test file was uploaded to pbs-f.
But - it's not very fast...
I included a method for using the method for spikes a la Gormley.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
