 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the perfect
kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled floor
is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it, I'm
sure.
Ruy
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cfl rrcom> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
> Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
> Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
> Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bc889f6@news.povray.org> , "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote:
> Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the perfect
> kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled floor
> is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it, I'm
> sure.
Don't worry. I never managed to get anything matching those great POV
artists either. And I have been using POV for years, just never the scene
description langauge... ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
perfect
> kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
floor
> is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
I'm
> sure.
Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and modeled
them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I model small objects from scratch, based on precise measurements from real
life. Because big objects in real life are made up of small objects. I have
a library of small but realistic looking things, that I made myself. Those I
can add to a bigger scene later on. Even on a distance, details should give
a better look. I model the back side of things too, but I try to avoid fully
invisible things, such as internal gear like you mention.
You rarely see me posting images here, first of all because I work a long
time with them, and don't finish anything so often... Secondly because I
recently lost most of my objects in a harddisk crash, so please backup your
things, folks.
Hugo
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
I see what you mean now, my blunder...
In answer to (what I think is) your real question, I model my scenes in a
way you can render them from any standpont and they would still make sense.
I don't use - to stay on your example - backdrop pictures and other
subterfuges made possible by povray, but not possible in real life.
Actually, I'd love to, but I am way to incompetent in the language to be
able to.Anyway, I'm not that uptight about it, though. Should you take a
cutaway at some of my models, you would fing flaws. My rule of thumb is: if
it will *never* be visible, don't model it; if there is the slightest
chance that someday it will be rendered in a way that it will be visible, go
ahead and do it.
Ruy
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is off the topic a bit, but you know what I'd like to see? A microscope
made in POV-Ray, using refraction, that actually works like a real
microscope if you put the camera up to the eyepiece. That'd be cool.
Useless, but cool.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
> news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> > Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> > manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> > photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
> perfect
> > kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly
believable
> > non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
> floor
> > is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
> I'm
> > sure.
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just like to add that in schools, they learn not to model anything that
won't be visible or important in the scene / animation they are working at..
In Hollywood, they model what they are asked to model, sometimes one half of
an object and not the other, if it's not going to be used.. And they use
*any* tricks that work.. But it's a matter of purpose.. Art for joy, art as
learning curve, art for money.. I think it's good to try all 3 ways of
working..
Hugo
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Art for money? That'll be the day... :-)
--
camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0
rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1 rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}}
finish{ambient 1}} #declare c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}} merge{object{c
translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
//Mahalis
--
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3bc96ddd$1@news.povray.org...
> Just like to add that in schools, they learn not to model anything that
> won't be visible or important in the scene / animation they are working
at..
> In Hollywood, they model what they are asked to model, sometimes one half
of
> an object and not the other, if it's not going to be used.. And they use
> *any* tricks that work.. But it's a matter of purpose.. Art for joy, art
as
> learning curve, art for money.. I think it's good to try all 3 ways of
> working..
>
> Hugo
>
>
> > Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> > continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal
gears
> > that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and
> modeled
> > them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> > slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
> >
> > But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working
parts.
> > Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc8a07e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Ruy" <ruy### [at] hipernetcombr> wrote in message
> news:3bc889f6@news.povray.org...
> > Although I have been poving this (in an off-and-off-and-off-and-on
> > manner...) since v2.2, I am obviously not skilled enough to get
> > photo-quality scenes rendered. Not that I would like to. Getting the
> perfect
> > kitchen rendered is not one if my goals, but having a perfectly believable
> > non-exixting object sitting on top of a table or, better yet, a tiled
> floor
> > is what I want. So I guess I do shoot for realism. One day I'll get it,
> I'm
> > sure.
>
> Well, I wasn't talking about photo-realism. For instance, I have a
> continuing project of modeling a microscope. There are some internal gears
> that I had to dismantle the microscope to find. But I found them and modeled
> them even though it will take a cutaway view to ever see them. Probably
> slows down the rendering a lot and certainly slowed down the project.
>
> But I can't see modeling something and leaving out the working parts.
> Probably a psychosis of some sort.
>
I was thinking of modelling the engine of my car as well, but considering the
render speed at the moment, I've been thinking of a height-field from a
photograph of an engine - very bad...
But I definitely still want to do the interior. I guess I want to make it seem
as real as possible and I get to know Pov better in the process.
- Nekar
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 2001/09/25
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bc936b6$1@news.povray.org...
> This is off the topic a bit, but you know what I'd like to see? A
microscope
> made in POV-Ray, using refraction, that actually works like a real
> microscope if you put the camera up to the eyepiece.
When I get mine done, it will do this. You should be able to change the
magnification and focus too.
> That'd be cool.
> Useless, but cool.
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
