Most of the time I just model everything that's going to be in the scene,
but if there isn't going to be anything of much interest beyond a certain
point I just put everything inside a reflective sphere.
--
 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
--

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
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

NO

- It never is.


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

> 
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. 

  I always try to get the appearance of reality by any mean, don't
matter if it is a phisically correct one or not. But this does not means
I model with detail all objects in the scene. In fact, most of my scenes
can't be rendered bigger because I used tricks that only work with
limited resolutions. I only have detailed objects at distance when I
reuse an old model, wich was on the foreground on a previous scene. 
 
>     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.

  Hmmm... not necesarily, but "usually" true. That's because an excess
of scruples can lead to never finish something. An old problem of art,
and many other human activities.

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message

Although most of my work so far has been more abstract (that is, things that
you won't find in real life), I make it in such a way that if it *did*
appear in real life, the mathematics behind it all would be identical. I
don't use hacks to make things look realistic if the workings behind them
are unrealistic, with a few exceptions. For example, I try to avoid
shadowless lights, because you don't find shadowless lights in the real
world. Stuff like that.

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
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

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] cflrrcom> 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