On 07-Sep-08 19:39, Ger wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> If that is the case then it might even be doable
>>> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
>> Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve
>> metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).
>>
> 
> Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

OK what about a 'concerted effort'?

>>> if I had the actual shape.
>> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.
> 
> Life is never without problems :)
> 
>> BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion
>> POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing
>> camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer
>> to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case
>> somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.
>>
>  I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)

What I meant is that defining a scene and the generation of output are 
two different things. Shay did define his scene in POV-SDL and was able 
to export his scene as a 2D jpg. If we want to create something physical 
we need a 'camera' that can output stereo lithography files (common 
extension of those files is STL). In comparison, Blender can output 
those, but that does not have a scene description language. Hence, I 
would like an STL camera in POV4 (or at least the possibility of 
including one).
Does that make sense?

Post a reply to this message