 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2002 11:13:18 -0400 Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
>It is nice, but artictic-merit image is IMHO nicer.
Hi, Rafal. As Jaime has already pointed out, we have the irtc.general
group on this news server that is more suited to this topic.
Please re-direct follow-up messages to that group or irtc.stills,
thanks.
--
Alan
ako### [at] povray org
a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xns### [at] 204213191226...
> "Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in news:3d9570bc@news.povray.org
>
> > For me it's simply the best picture.
> > Its concept, composition and lighting are perfect and it has a soul
> > most other pics don't have. Having more complex textures and objects
> > could very well have ruined it.
>
> Yes, but image has some basic 'mistakes' - like to low AA wisible i.e. on
> ladders.
"mistakes" like this (if they are indeed mistakes) do not matter when the
image has clearly a superior artistic quality, which is the case.
They only matter on bad pics in fact, because they just make them worse...
Believe me, when I saw this round, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever
that this image would win.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, but image has some basic 'mistakes' - like to low AA wisible i.e. on
> > ladders.
>
> "mistakes" like this (if they are indeed mistakes) do not matter when the
> image has clearly a superior artistic quality, which is the case.
> They only matter on bad pics in fact, because they just make them worse...
> Believe me, when I saw this round, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever
> that this image would win.
And apart from that with a bit of knowledge about how POV-Ray works or if
you read the text file you could notice that rendering this kind of scene
is quite a computational problem. It's easy to nitpick about the
technical limitations of an image if you don't have to render it.
I don't think the technical rating in the IRTC is always optimal, but for
this picture it seems perfectly justified (if not too low).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To join the fray :-) - I believe a common artistic mistake made by many who
are otherwise technically competent is that they add too much 'stuff' to
their images. A visual artist should aim for the simplest image which fully
communicates her message to the viewer.
In fact Gilles, if I may comment here on your Spirit of Asia image. When I saw
it, I marveled along with most, but I feel strongly it would have been a much
more powerful image if there had been no 'moving' vehicles and no poser people
at all. If, like here at work on September 11th of last year, normal life was
paused for a moment.
Yes, the image would have then be less aligned to the topic at which you were
ceratinly aiming. My opinion is certainly colored too by being an American -
changing the television image would be another way to go.
And, in the end everybody's idea of art is different.
Regards, Bill P.
> Xns### [at] 204213191226...
> > "Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in news:3d9570bc@news.povray.org
> >
> > > For me it's simply the best picture.
> > > Its concept, composition and lighting are perfect and it has a soul
> > > most other pics don't have. Having more complex textures and objects
> > > could very well have ruined it.
> >
> > Yes, but image has some basic 'mistakes' - like to low AA wisible i.e. on
> > ladders.
>
> "mistakes" like this (if they are indeed mistakes) do not matter when the
> image has clearly a superior artistic quality, which is the case.
> They only matter on bad pics in fact, because they just make them worse...
> Believe me, when I saw this round, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever
> that this image would win.
>
> G.
>
> --
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 3D95E4A3.F0B46E7B@attglobal.net...
> In fact Gilles, if I may comment here on your Spirit of Asia image. When I
saw
> it, I marveled along with most, but I feel strongly it would have been a
much
> more powerful image if there had been no 'moving' vehicles and no poser
people
> at all. If, like here at work on September 11th of last year, normal life
was
> paused for a moment.
Well the initial idea was to show a vision of Asia like the one I know from
the local Chinatown here, i.e. full of life, lots of people working, eating,
walking everywhere at any hour, quite different from the most symbolic Asia
shown in other entries. The 9-11 reference was a late addition that I felt
necessary at the time, because it was (and still is) inescapable, and I
felt that the happy folks in the pic needed a (bitter) taste of it. It
linked the picture and its inhabitants to what was going on, even though
their absence of reaction may seem a little bit off.
So it's not a 9-11 picture per se, but if it were, you're right about the
feeling that if would better if empty. I could be an alternate version,
actually, all I need is to switch off the cars and people... I'll keep that
in mind when I update my website with the 2002 pics.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm aware of all artifacts of the image. Actually some of them are
not artifacts, like a lack of textures. Believe me I tried to use some
bricks' and other textures but it distracts the attention and breaks
the unity of the image. Also I tried to use snow which suits fine
here but it slows down the rendering time very much.
About antialising. I asked Paul (who rendered the image) to use +a0.3
parameter in command line. Maybe he forgot to do that or it's not enough
for this image.
FYI, here is another 'wrong' or 'missed' stuff which was overlooked by
critics :)
There are no antennas and satellite dishes. But it was done intentionally
to emphasize the eternity of the situation.
That shining window was placed too far from the 'golden section'
point and from the point of intersection of all imaginative lines. It was
too late to fix that "problem". The window should be placed one store
lower and more close to the left side.
There is too bright ground spot on the right side. As a result
one building looks floating in the air. It happenned because that
building ... is really floating in the air :) Radiosity helped here to
disguise this artifact because it makes all shadows soft :)
Gena.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3d95d946@news.povray.org...
>
> there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever
> that this image would win.
>
I am curious what type of pic will win the current round. With so many apps
available to texture and create landscapes, I believe that many entries will
be very *complete* looking, if not very artistic.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3d987b9a$1@news.povray.org...
> I am curious what type of pic will win the current round. With so many
apps
> available to texture and create landscapes, I believe that many entries
will
> be very *complete* looking, if not very artistic.
True, there are lots of apps, and we can expect some nice Vue, Bryce and
Terragen/Forrester/POV-Ray images but to create realistic landscapes (as
more or less required by the current topic) is still possibly one of the
most challenging tasks in 3D. In POV-Ray, at least, I find it quite
difficult. Just take your average classic landscape painting and try to
mimic that (I'm not saying that's what people should do of course, I hope to
see some original stuff). Everything is challenging there : the lighting,
the sky, the clouds, the vegetation, the ground definition and textures etc.
Trying to find the right green for a grass cover, for instance... And
furthermore we're much less tolerant to error there. Indoors scenes and
man-made landscapes are much easier to do!
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3d98d213@news.povray.org...
I think that you are looking at the idea from the perspective of a person
who is already adept at lighting and composition. A man-made landscape of
sky-scrapers, for instance, is made principally from boxes (buildings)
covered with a regular pattern of squares (windows). Interest must be
created with textures, composition, and lighting. A hf mountain surrounded
by existing vegetation macros and existing water code, and lit with global
illumination may be harder to compose and color properly, but the "artist"
will have a scene with an extremely high level of detail with only a few
lines of code. The challenge which many face of overcoming the CG look when
modeling is hardly an issue with a landscape.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3d99e9dc@news.povray.org...
> A hf mountain surrounded
> by existing vegetation macros and existing water code, and lit with global
> illumination may be harder to compose and color properly,
But that's the problem ! We (hobbysts) don't have really good vegetation
macros, or really good water code, or really good cloud code or even really
good ways to create and texture mountains. Even realistic haze can turn into
a nightmare
So we have fairly nice bits of this and that which can be put cleverly
together to create actually good images
(http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-12-31/chasia.jpg,
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-12-31/halong.jpg,
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Gallery/Pictures/7-laux.jpg) , but it's really
not simple, and there's a lot of standard landscapes that I still have to
see in hobbyst's 3D (like
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/c/claude/2/11paris.jpg).
Perhaps I should only say that the current limitations in CG landscaping are
much more important than for indoors scenes or "package-shot" scenes. I've
seen a lot a photorealistic scenes of this latter kind but very few
photorealistic landscapes (and again, I'm not saying that photorealism is a
good criteria to judge an image).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
