"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.42a57429e57fa8b4731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> An update on my Escher print interpretation.
>
> I was clearly lying in the previous post, I wasn't happy with the building
> geometry at all! It's a bit better now. I've made the whole thing bigger,
> put loads of windows and doorframes and detail guff like that, added
> flagpoles, textured the floor a bit better (not that you can tell at this
> resolution) and just generally tidied up. I expect my careful wall
> texturing is completely invisible at this zoom factor - if anyone can make
> it out I'd be interested in your comments. It's a kind of patchy, speckled
> surface such as might be seen on concrete from a distance.
>
> I'm almost happy with the boulder.
>
> Still to do: some people for the verandahs, trees and bushes for the
> boulder, maybe some rock strata for the boulder? Not sure if that would
> work. Must investigate. I also think I'm a too bit close and wide-angle -
> there's too much perspective on the nearside vertices. I need to move the
> camera back a little.

Bill,
The rock looks sedimentary with its parallel striations. Sandstone rather
than quartz or granite.
You can just about see the grains of sand in the composite.
This leaves an issue of scale - it looks no bigger than a rock or a
boulder - so the structures look doll's house scale at biggest. Perhaps they
have tiny ant-sized inhabitants? However if the habitations are human scale,
the coarse structure needs to become the detail. e.g.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dasg0007/picture%20gallery/northshore/ns10.htm

btw nice symmetry wrt two elements

DLM

Post a reply to this message