"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

Should we postpone this project till the end of this
year because of new POVCOMP deadline?

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Gena <gen### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Should we postpone this project till the end of this
> year because of new POVCOMP deadline?
>
> Gena.

I wonder nobody replies to this question why.
I also want to participate in this project.
If you want to postpone it until POVCOMP finishes, I still do not matter.

Regards

miyoken

Post a reply to this message

>> Should we postpone this project till the end of this
>> year because of new POVCOMP deadline?

> I wonder nobody replies to this question why.
Real Life (TM) for my side.

So here's my answer :)

Principally, this kind of project does not need a certain timeframe, as 
contributions are individual and can be given at any time. IMHO the 
project would benefit from a start with many contributions, though, so 
it may be wise to postpone it until after POVCOMP, to give people a bit 
of a break.


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

Gena <gen### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Is there anybody interested in collective project?
> The idea is not new:
>
> But in our case it could be done in POV-Ray. For
> example we could make super still life. We can agree
> on a template scene which could have just a table
> with some default lighting (for consistency of the
> final image). The table should have seamless edges.
> So that its right edge should match its left edge.
> And eventually it will be just one very long table :)
> Then everybody who wants to participate just takes
> the template scene and creates his/her own still life.
> I just don't know where we could keep all that stuff :)
> Any ideas about rules, deadline etc.? I appreciate any
> input.
>
> Gena.

If the Table was created properly, then each "section" would have a
predefined
left/right limit and its own light source (which could be turned off if
desired.
Each user *could* provide their own light source, but could use the default
one.
a simple "cylinder/line" could separate each section (for testing), but
would
be turned off for the final renders.

Question, though: Would the final results be only a list of images that
would
be arranged on a long table? Perhaps an animation that smoothly scrolls down
the table?

I have some "remnant" objects from the October IRTC that didn't end up in
the final
image (a Guitar and Stratego game) that I could submit.

James Coons

Post a reply to this message

Gena <gen### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Is there anybody interested in collective project?
> The idea is not new:
>
> Gena.

I have had another idea that I thought would be interesting.
(a) Start with a simple "stock" image, possibly from a POV Template.
(b) Fix the camera location and POV units of measurement.
(c) Individual users would modify the scene using some simple rules.
   (1) Only one major object can be added or changed at a time.
   (2) Changes can include textures, pigments, method of drawing
   (3) Smaller objects can be added to improve an existing object.
(d) Each subsequent "evolution" would be added to a list, with source code.
(e) Additional "evolutions" would start with the most recent source code.

Any thoughts?

James Coons

Post a reply to this message

James A Coons wrote:
> I have had another idea that I thought would be interesting...

Sounds interesting. We can add that as an option. So
if somebody will submit source files and doesn't mind
any changes in the scene than anybody else could
improve the scene or add anything else.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message

Florian Brucker wrote:

> project would benefit from a start with many contributions, though, so 
> it may be wise to postpone it until after POVCOMP, to give people a bit 
> of a break.

Agree. Let's do that after POVCOMP. Meanwhile if anybody will
come up with a good template scene let us know.

Gena.

Post a reply to this message