> How about a "Still Life Museum"? Some arrangements could each be on 
> their own seperate table
> and there could be a long table in the center.
Well, IMHO the main idea is that all objects are somehow linked 
together, i.e. are positioned on the same table (I've also seen images 
where each contribution was a wagon of a train). It's also important 
that everyone can render his contribution independant from the other 
contributions. And having the common idea it's interesting what people 
make of it.
Therefore I really like the table idea better :)

Florian
-- 
camera{look_at-y*10location<8,-3,-8>*10}#local a=0;#while(a<999)sphere{
#local _=.01*a-4.99;#local p=a*.01-5;#local c=.01*a-4.995;<sin(p*pi)*5p
*10pow(p,5)*.01>sin(c*c*c*.1)+1pigment{rgb 3}}#local a=a+1;#end
/******** http://www.torfbold.com ******** http://www.imp.org ********/

Post a reply to this message

"Florian Brucker" <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote in message
news:41782171@news.povray.org...
> > How about a "Still Life Museum"? Some arrangements could each be on
> > their own seperate table
> > and there could be a long table in the center.
> Well, IMHO the main idea is that all objects are somehow linked
> together, i.e. are positioned on the same table (I've also seen images
> where each contribution was a wagon of a train). It's also important
> that everyone can render his contribution independant from the other
> contributions. And having the common idea it's interesting what people
> make of it.
> Therefore I really like the table idea better :)
>
> Florian
> -- 

I like the table idea better, but i think the lighting should be constant.
either no real lights and have pure radiosity lighting or have some lights
that cause pretty short shadows so shadows don't get cut off at the table
"edges" between individual tiles. If you have scenes with different
lighting, the brightness of the table will be different in each scene.

I also think 800x600 is way to big for something that could be a very long
string of images. 400x300 maybe. 640x480 is even big if you have 20 images
side by side.

i guess you could ask for 2 versions. a 400x300 and an 800x600.

Also, as far as isowood, isn't isowood pretty time consuming?

I was even imagining instead of a table, having a conveyor belt/assembly
line kind of surface. It would offer easier tiling i think. but a table
might look nicer.

just a few not quite random thoughts...

Post a reply to this message

Florian Brucker wrote:
> If web space is the only problem here, I'd be happy to supply some. 
> Although I think first posting the images to pbi is a good idea 
> nevertheless.

That's great! I think we will need just two pages.
First one with all images connected to each other.
Image size should not be too big smth. like 320*240.
Each image will have a link to a large version 800*600.
Second page could have just image names and author
names.

> IMHO we have to decide which approach we want: There's the "all images 
> share a table element" way or the "that looks like a long table where 
> everybody put different stuff on" approach. I personally like the second 
> one better, i.e. one with the same background etc. in every image. But 
> I'm open to everything here :)

I think we should use some kind of mixture of these
two approaches :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

> I like the table idea better, but i think the lighting should be constant.
> either no real lights and have pure radiosity lighting or have some lights
> that cause pretty short shadows so shadows don't get cut off at the table
> "edges" between individual tiles. If you have scenes with different
> lighting, the brightness of the table will be different in each scene.

IMHO pre-defined lights and background are too restrictive
conditions. Usually different objects need different set of
lights and their positions. Also in this case you cannot use
lighting from smth. like Tiffany table lamps, candles etc. :)

> I also think 800x600 is way to big for something that could be a very long
> string of images. 400x300 maybe. 640x480 is even big if you have 20 images
> side by side.

I think homepage should have a strip of images of size 320*240.
Clicking on any image will bring high resolution image 800*600.
Usually 640*480 is not enough for detailed image.

> Also, as far as isowood, isn't isowood pretty time consuming?

Right, I should say wood textures developed by Christoph.

> I was even imagining instead of a table, having a conveyor belt/assembly
> line kind of surface. It would offer easier tiling i think. but a table
> might look nicer.

Maybe only table object should be defined and should stay
unchanged through all images(?) And authors could assign to it
any texture which they think is more appropriate to their
image. The whole strip of images will be very eclectic in this
case but I don't think it's too bad in this case :)

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
 >

The only way I can thing of to make this look right would be to use 
small bar tables, one per entry. The bar tables could have an easel-like 
stand behind them on which a background could be painted. The background 
of the entire scene would have to be a solid pigment color so that 
radiosity would not effect it. With one big table, the camera position 
would have to be locked. With small tables, any camera position which 
did not make obvious the lack of a floor would look OK. The perspective 
would change from entry to entry, but there would be no "breaks".

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

As I said before, I really like the idea of making it all look like it 
was rendered in one pass, e.g. no visible breaks in background etc. 
Nevertheless, I see that artistic freedom is important, too.

I think using some tricks like light_groups, spot_lights or point_lights 
with fade_distance, it should be easy to create a piece of table, which 
blends nicely with other contributions but allows custom lighting.

After all it is IMHO not the idea of such a project that everybody 
provides a full scene, but something small, which can nevertheless be 
very interesting. Therefore I don't think you'll need a change in 
background. You should put something interesting *on* the table, not 
behind it :)

Using a seperate table for each element would be a possibility, but it 
destroys much of the basic idea of the whole project (the one idea makes 
it so interesting). If you vary the camera settings, too, you get 
nothing more than some images which share an object...

Florian
-- 
camera{look_at-y*10location<8,-3,-8>*10}#local a=0;#while(a<999)sphere{
#local _=.01*a-4.99;#local p=a*.01-5;#local c=.01*a-4.995;<sin(p*pi)*5p
*10pow(p,5)*.01>sin(c*c*c*.1)+1pigment{rgb 3}}#local a=a+1;#end
/******** http://www.torfbold.com ******** http://www.imp.org ********/

Post a reply to this message

The idea with sharing sources and using them to create nice blends is 
IMHO lots of work - changing one contribution would almost always mean 
to change the contributions on each side, too (and perhaps they change 
that much that their neighbours have to be changed, too, etc.). This is 
not acceptable IMO.

Also I got the idea of creating the webpage in such a way that you get a 
random table everytime (random order of contributions). No chance to do 
that with your idea :(

Florian
-- 
camera{look_at-y*10location<8,-3,-8>*10}#local a=0;#while(a<999)sphere{
#local _=.01*a-4.99;#local p=a*.01-5;#local c=.01*a-4.995;<sin(p*pi)*5p
*10pow(p,5)*.01>sin(c*c*c*.1)+1pigment{rgb 3}}#local a=a+1;#end
/******** http://www.torfbold.com ******** http://www.imp.org ********/

Post a reply to this message

"Florian Brucker" <tor### [at] torfboldcom> wrote in message
news:417949c3@news.povray.org...
> As I said before, I really like the idea of making it all look like it
> was rendered in one pass, e.g. no visible breaks in background etc.
> Nevertheless, I see that artistic freedom is important, too.
>
> I think using some tricks like light_groups, spot_lights or point_lights
> with fade_distance, it should be easy to create a piece of table, which
> blends nicely with other contributions but allows custom lighting.
>
> After all it is IMHO not the idea of such a project that everybody
> provides a full scene, but something small, which can nevertheless be
> very interesting. Therefore I don't think you'll need a change in
> background. You should put something interesting *on* the table, not
> behind it :)
>
> Using a seperate table for each element would be a possibility, but it
> destroys much of the basic idea of the whole project (the one idea makes
> it so interesting). If you vary the camera settings, too, you get
> nothing more than some images which share an object...
>
> Florian
> -- 


Again, I agree with Florian. It seems like with spotlights or pointlights
with good fade distances, you could light your objects without significantly
effecting the borders of your table. radiosity might make that difficult
though.

Post a reply to this message

Ross wrote:
> Again, I agree with Florian. It seems like with spotlights or pointlights
> with good fade distances, you could light your objects without significantly
> effecting the borders of your table. radiosity might make that difficult
> though.

Exactly. If we allow to use radiosity we should define
absolutely all radiosity settings and light sources (if any).
Again, I think it's too restrictive. The idea to share light
sources between scenes is not acceptable because you depend too
much on your neighbour(s). Also if we allow any post-processing
and HDRI this discussion doesn't make any sense :) In this case
we all have to use the same HDRI image, the same filter etc.

So, let's make it less restrictive and make the only
pre-defined object - table and fixed camera (position
and the rest attributes). These two conditions should
provide some kind of "glue" between images.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena wrote:
> Florian Brucker wrote:
> 
>> If web space is the only problem here, I'd be happy to supply some. 
>> Although I think first posting the images to pbi is a good idea 
>> nevertheless.
> 
> 
> That's great! I think we will need just two pages.
> First one with all images connected to each other.
> Image size should not be too big smth. like 320*240.
> Each image will have a link to a large version 800*600.
> Second page could have just image names and author
> names.
> 
>> IMHO we have to decide which approach we want: There's the "all images 
>> share a table element" way or the "that looks like a long table where 
>> everybody put different stuff on" approach. I personally like the 
>> second one better, i.e. one with the same background etc. in every 
>> image. But I'm open to everything here :)
> 
> 
> I think we should use some kind of mixture of these
> two approaches :)
> 
> Gena.
> 

how about table being a segment of a circular table, with a hole in it - 
sort of a washer with legs on it :-)

camera in center or maybe offset looking across 2 - 3 segments, rotate 
visible segment on each visit to web page or make a movie
once above about 5 / 6 entries should smooth out quite nicely

stephen

Post a reply to this message