Now, I agree this image isn't the _perfect_ fit for the povray.org front
page, but...

"Simen Kvaal" <sim### [at] studentmatnatuiono> wrote in message
news:394f2e79@news.povray.org...
> No, seriously. I think that having a semi-nude model not even generated in
> Povray on the front page; splashing in your face like that can scare some
> people away; especially younger people. And _I'd_ doubt the seriousness of
> the product.

That's surely why so many advertiser use nudity: to scare people away -
especially "younger people". Akh! I hate PC!


> And it's not a very pretty woman, either. Too skinny. That kind of woman
> that makes girls try to loose weight, and so on. I mean it.

Just the current look trend.

Oh yeah - it's only a rendering.

Povingly


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
> : Sez who? Speak for
> : yourself!http://www.geocities.com/pterandon/photos/povraystyleface.jpg
>
>   I wouldn't say that looks quite realistic or organic.

The point is that povray was more of a modeller for this (very cool albeit robotic
IMHO) image.  It is animitable. I don't know of any other package that I could do
this with, especially if I wanted to animate blobby interactions with other things.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't see the problem with the brown colors themselves, except that it's
> almost obvious that they were chosen to accompany the 1e6 yrs BC-look-alike-gall1.

Rubbish. Total rot. Nonsense. Twaddle. Etc.

The fact is I went searching for a good image to fit on the right-hand side
that was a similar shape and colour to the left-hand menu. I found that in
the IRTC (in fact it's Nathan O'Brien's work).

I don't mind people complaining about the colours etc but I get annoyed when
I see folks trying to put words in my mouth. Please be more considerate. I
do this for free on top of a very busy professional life. If you don't like
it, that's one thing, but it's unreasonable and disrespectful of you to make
up ludicrous claims like I'd base an entire web site's colour scheme on one
single image. It is absurd and frankly quite insulting. The image was chosen
because it suited the colour scheme, not the other way around, and that's a
fact whether you like it or not.

I don't really want to get involved in any argument about what is and what
is not 'good web design'. It's impossible to please everyone.

So please, people, don't follow this message up with any further comments
about the site, or I'll just nuke the entire thread and stop reading your
feedback altogether (yes, I *have* been reading it, and will probably change
things to give more contrast, amongst other tweaks).

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Ray Team Co-ordinator

PS FWIW, I got the inspiration (if you can call it that) for the colour
scheme from www.planetquake.com. I personally like muted, dark schemes and
took the advice of the old saying 'if you can't please everybody you might
as well please yourself'. It's impossible to please every user about the
scheme, so there's no use even trying.

Post a reply to this message

I like it that it loads faster which is the best part..

The girl looks great!! I don't care how she was created. But having her
there makes the site male biased and possibly scare away any females.. - I
certainly wouldn't like to visit the site as often it there was a male
figure with just a g-string...


Yes, the colors are a bit dark... but not a problem reading anything.

I think the spiraling movement of the image-de-jour should be static.


"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:394### [at] inapginrafr...
> Just went to the POV-Ray page looking for links, and it happens to have
> a new design !
> It looks like it's still a work in progress. I hope that there will be
> new things in the "under construction pages".
> First remarks:
> - It certainly loads faster (javascript gone) which is better.
> - I'm not too happy with the colours which are a tad dark, and with the
> Poser girl, which I find too Poseresque (that hair, ahem..) and not a
> good demo for the mapping abilities that should be in Povray 3.5.
> What do people think ?
> G.
>

Post a reply to this message

Okay. I think I was a _bit_ too annoyed at that image and pushed aside the
fact that the person creating this design probably knew much better! (About
the color-scheme-complaints and such.)

Sorry if I insulted you; I really shouldn't. It's great that people in the
POV-team are willing to use so much time at creating something people can
use for free and of such quality. I guess the want-to-have-opinions got me
carried away (and probably others too...)

Regards,
Simen Kvaal.

>I don't mind people complaining about the colours etc but I get annoyed
when
>I see folks trying to put words in my mouth. Please be more considerate. I
>do this for free on top of a very busy professional life. If you don't like
>it, that's one thing, but it's unreasonable and disrespectful of you to
make
>up ludicrous claims like I'd base an entire web site's colour scheme on one
>single image. It is absurd and frankly quite insulting. The image was
chosen
>because it suited the colour scheme, not the other way around, and that's a
>fact whether you like it or not.
>

Post a reply to this message

> I hate the little menus (@1280x1024),

I run at the same resoultion and I belive they're pretty nice.
The old buttons were nice at 1280x1024, but at 800x600 they were very big.
Try surfing around on the page a bit, and you'll get used to it very fast.
After all, I belive there are more people running 800x600 than 1280x1024.

> Also, the girl is totally out of place. Although she certainly shows off
the
> fact that POV can handle meshes, she just doesn't fit in. I would put her
in
> a complete scene, to show the use of the model, and display it in a nice
3D
> situation, with nice lighting, like in Gilles' scenes.

A completely scene placed where the girl are now instead of the girl?
In that way the girl-scene would draw all the attention from the rest of the
page.
That wouldn't be the solution..

--
Peter
http://hertel.no/bigone

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:44:19 -0700 Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>Wouldn't that violate some existing statuary statutes ?
><bg>

  Gesundheit!

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

"Simen Kvaal" <sim### [at] studentmatnatuiono> wrote in message
news:394f3044$1@news.povray.org...
> so finding something _a bit_ more original
> shouldn't be any problem.


What is the value of originality for originality's sake?


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3951e103@news.povray.org...
>
> "Simen Kvaal" <sim### [at] studentmatnatuiono> wrote in message
> news:394f3044$1@news.povray.org...
> > so finding something _a bit_ more original
> > shouldn't be any problem.
>
>
> What is the value of originality for originality's sake?
>

When you ask this question, you attack the very foundations of Western
Civilisation and software upgrades. Commie.

Post a reply to this message

"Mark Gordon" <mtg### [at] mailbagcom> wrote in message
news:39500C6F.D464E01D@mailbag.com...
> Scott Hill wrote:
>
> >     I still recovering from the fact that _anyone_ would be put off
povray
> > by the sight of _rendered_ scantily clad females... Kind of implies
they're
> > put off by a whole host of other art forms...
>
> Maybe if she were rendered with a marble texture, she wouldn't be so
> controversial. ;-)
>

    Precisely. <bg>

    Actually, I'm curious, those who where offended by the poser figure, are
you also offended by statues, sculptures or paintings of scantily clad (or,
shock, horror, nude) subjects ?

--
Scott Hill. (sco### [at] innocentcom)
Software Engineer.
Author of Pandora's Box (coming to a web page soon(ish)).

*Everything in this post is IMO.*

Post a reply to this message