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

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...

<snip>

The vast* majority of my scenes will only work from the set-up camera. I very
rarely model anything that isn't directly viewable. Even visible objects may be
distorted if viewed from other angles. For reflective surfaces, I'll generally
have a textured plane or box for something to reflect, but that's about it...

For an example, see my post to pbi...

That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive or
dead? ;)


* can the majority of a small number of scenes be vast? Hmmm....

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> escreveu na mensagem
news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
> That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
or
> dead? ;)

Oh, that's an easy one: both.

Post a reply to this message

Ruy wrote:

> "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> escreveu na mensagem
> news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
> > That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
> or
> > dead? ;)
>
> Oh, that's an easy one: both.

No. Neither.


--
Jon A. Cruz
http://www.geocities.com/joncruz/action.html

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3bcafa8c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> That aside, when you render schrodinger's box, is the cat inside it alive
or
> dead? ;)
>

That depends on the state of the box (open/closed), the position of the
camera
and wheter or not a computer can be considered an observer for the purpose
of making quantum wavefroms collapse.

<grin>

Gail
--
*************************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza                *   Step into the abyss,           *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/   *   and let go.          Babylon 5 *
*************************************************************************
* Just think of me as the storm before the calm     Magic: The Gathering*
*************************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

"Gail Shaw" <gsh### [at] monotixcoza> wrote in message
news:3bcbce99@news.povray.org...
>
>
> That depends on the state of the box (open/closed), the position of the
> camera
> and wheter or not a computer can be considered an observer for the purpose
> of making quantum wavefroms collapse.
>

So how does bill resolve rendering a closed box if he insists on rendering the
hidden parts?

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote :
>
> So how does bill resolve rendering a closed box if he insists on rendering
the
> hidden parts?

    You make some switch/case statements that put a animatable cat in it if
the particle fails to decay, and puts a stiff cat in it if it does decay...
or is that the other way around... Anyway, then you make a random decay
function for the particle.

Post a reply to this message