 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I really like the way the lights on/in the building fade up and down--a nice
touch.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> wrote in
news:web.4b2d40006d0b1d7b65f302820@news.povray.org:
> I really like the way the lights on/in the building fade up and
> down--a nice touch.
>
> Ken
Thanks for the comments guys, feedback is much appreciated.
--
Cheers
Steve
http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEbyQLcMtdc
Would you care for some constructive criticism?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just put a video up on YouTube with a POV animation in it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEbyQLcMtdc
>
> Just a fly through to be able to see a model from different angles
> initially but as usual I got carried away a bit then I thought why not put
> some music to it etc etc. Of course I give POV quite a plug too, I also
> do some credits in POV.
>
> I had real trouble finding cmpeg on the net there were so many dead links
> or spam type links that I got from my searches so when I finally found it I
> decided I'd put it on my own web pages for download, you can get it here:
>
> http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/mno/cmpeg.zip
>
> or from the macros & objects page at zeropps.
>
Nice little test piece. Hope it leads to more. Liked the guitar too.
-Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in news:4b2d6ae5@news.povray.org:
> Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEbyQLcMtdc
>
> Would you care for some constructive criticism?
>
Yes any constructive criticism is welcome.
--
Cheers
Steve
http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in news:4b2d6ae5@news.povray.org:
> > Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEbyQLcMtdc
> >
> > Would you care for some constructive criticism?
> >
> Yes any constructive criticism is welcome.
Ok.
You don't need to literally point out text appearing on screen. If you
simply mention briefly something (such as POV-Ray), just showing the URL
as text on the video is enough to make it obvious where more info about
the program can be found. Literally pointing it with your hand out is a
bit cringeworthy, especially when done repeatedly many times.
The whole introduction speech could have been a bit shorter, and you
could have cut right after the last sentence.
Most POV-Ray animations I have seen in YouTube do not pay almost any
attention whatsoever to texturing and lighting quality. This has the
negative effect of making POV-Ray look like a very primitive rendering
program, like it was 15 years ago. It would be really nice if people
making such animations would put a lit more work on the textures and
lighting.
Your animation might be just a quick test render, but your lengthy speech
at the beginning gives the impression that this will be the main end
product, and that you spent the majority of your time doing this, which
is then watered down by the archaic texturing and lighting (which is
especially disappointing after saying how great of a program POV-Ray is).
If you want some texturing and lighting tips, this might give you some
ideas: http://warp.povusers.org/povtips/ (although I didn't write that
specifically with building models in mind).
You could have used splines to move the camera, making the movement
smoother and more natural.
The path of the camera along a spline can be easily visualized in a
test render by drawing small spheres along the spline and connecting them
with cylinders. This way you can see the whole path of the camera in one
go, and do finetuning adjustments to the control points as necessary.
(Also the distance between the spheres is indicative of the speed of the
camera at that point.)
If the camera moves too fast, as in this video, just render more frames.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks Warp, I'll take these points into consideration in the future.
--
Cheers
Steve
http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Most POV-Ray animations I have seen in YouTube do not pay almost any
> attention whatsoever to texturing and lighting quality. This has the
> negative effect of making POV-Ray look like a very primitive rendering
> program, like it was 15 years ago. It would be really nice if people
> making such animations would put a lit more work on the textures and
> lighting.
DISCLAIMER: My favorite 3D films (The Incredibles to Meatballs to Astro Boy)
wouldn't be what they are without ideal use of radiosity, lighting, and
texturing.
What is the purpose of art-- what is the purpose of tinkering with povray?
Reasons might include the search for what will sell for a buck, what is
entertaining, what brings joy, what will inform, what will inspire.
I would encourage folks not to follow Warp's advice. My basis for making this
recommendation is that I am the creator of the 23rd, 31st, 45th, 51st, 54th,
55th, 59th, (and 813th!!) most "popular" of the 814 products labeled with
"povray" at zazzle.com. Some of my works have a higher rating than some of
Giles Tran's. While all of his work probably has higher artistic merit, its
possible that zazzle's page-view statistics could show that joy, entertainment,
or inspiration could come with simple forms over exhaustive photorealism.
So the advice, of:
"Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work which doesn't
demonstrate optimum radiosity, lighting, and texturing."
.... should be counterbalanced with the advice of:
"Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work that has wooden
demonstrations of radiosity, lighting, and texturing."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What is the purpose of art-- what is the purpose of tinkering with povray?
> Reasons might include the search for what will sell for a buck, what is
> entertaining, what brings joy, what will inform, what will inspire.
In general, art should aim to be visually pleasing. While a common view
is that an artist makes art for himself, not for others, the pragmatic
approach should be the opposite: If you are going to share your works of
art, it's good to aim for that art to be visually pleasing to others.
No offense to the original author of the video, but I feel that often
these animations with simplistic textures pulled directly from the standard
include files as-they-are is not a result of expressing oneself as a form
of art, but just laziness. In other words, only a minimum amount of work was
put into making the animation.
Of course anybody is entitled to do their animations in whichever way
they want, but I offered my suggestions on how he could better his work
to increase their quality (especially since he specifically asked for it).
What personally bothers me about lazy texturing is, as I already said,
that it gives a rather poor perception of how good of a renderer POV-Ray
really is. If the images look like they were created in 1995, it doesn't
give a very good impression of the program.
> I would encourage folks not to follow Warp's advice. My basis for making this
> recommendation is that I am the creator of the 23rd, 31st, 45th, 51st, 54th,
> 55th, 59th, (and 813th!!) most "popular" of the 814 products labeled with
> "povray" at zazzle.com. Some of my works have a higher rating than some of
> Giles Tran's. While all of his work probably has higher artistic merit, its
> possible that zazzle's page-view statistics could show that joy, entertainment,
> or inspiration could come with simple forms over exhaustive photorealism.
As I said, there's a big difference between creating art and being talented
at it (even if the result is not very photorealistic, maybe because it's not
even supposed to be) and being outright lazy because you can't be bothered to
create better textures and lighting.
> So the advice, of:
> "Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work which doesn't
> demonstrate optimum radiosity, lighting, and texturing."
> .... should be counterbalanced with the advice of:
> "Please don't embarass the povray community by displaying work that has wooden
> demonstrations of radiosity, lighting, and texturing."
The bottom line is: If you want my advice, put some work in those textures
(regardless of what they are meant to represent). Don't just copy other
people's textures verbatim (especially not from the standard include files;
at least not those which look like made 15 years ago).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What personally bothers me about lazy texturing is, as I already said,
> that it gives a rather poor perception of how good of a renderer POV-Ray
> really is. If the images look like they were created in 1995, it doesn't
> give a very good impression of the program.
>
That is one possible perception, obviously, since you took it that way.
But not the only one. Another might see it as a very approachable
program for amateur use, and be drawn to it.
I think the texturing was so understated that it can only be taken as a
sort of placeholder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
