"MattM" <mat### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Well xmas it is then (I was open to any theme) I think ray-tracers all get
> secretly exciting about rendering baubles etc when it comes down to it.

Andrew is going to get over-excited :)

> I'm glad you've had some experience of this, I think rendering resources is
> a potential obstacle, as long as individual contributions are sensible, you
> know, not using a 2MB mesh for each snowdrop etc we could create quite a
> large pic. Also we could just render portions of the image then stitch them
> together to get around that problem.

One problem is that everyone will want to give their best and that generally
means longish render times for each object. Especially if they are *shiny*
and interact with each other. But that is the coordinators problem :) It
might be a good idea if you defined a scale that everyone should use and a
few ground rules. Most of my images contain a Poser figure or two and those
meshes with their accompanying image maps can add up to large files, beware.


a while) as he organised the Moray Tribute. Search for it in p.m.w and
p.m.b.

> Your object sounds ideal.



> I was going to mention some sort of standard to make things easy which is
> basically to provide an .inc file with just the object/s (no scene, global
> stuff etc) with details of what object/macro name to call from the main
> file).

Good Luck getting a consensus from this lot :)

> If you can see my email, I'd be happy to accept it there.

Can do but I'll wait untill I get the ground rules

> thanks
>
> Now we need more takers! I mean if we're thinking gigapixel images (yes I
> know pov has a limit) we need many many objects!
>
> (It did cross my mind that a great image would rival/beat
> themilliondollarwebsite in terms of a users interest, advertising etc, but
> I'm not suggesting this to make money, its in the spirit of collaborative
> art!!)



Stephen

Post a reply to this message