I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
observation to share.  I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being pushed
aside by more complex modelling techniques.  Which of course means the
modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds max
and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
spatch, ...) to make a complete scene.  Where are the days when all you
needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to create
CSG objects?  Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use NURBS
or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
Anyway, that's just how I feel.  Anyone else have a different view on this?

Zero

Post a reply to this message

Zero wrote:
> 
> I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
> observation to share.  I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
> the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being pushed
> aside by more complex modelling techniques.  Which of course means the
> modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds max
> and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
> spatch, ...) to make a complete scene.  Where are the days when all you
> needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to create
> CSG objects?  Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use NURBS
> or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel.  Anyone else have a different view on this?

Not a different view from your observation... but do
you have an opinion on this?  For myself I'm addicted
to animation, so having a modeler assist me is really
helpful.  I've never graded an image/animation down
because someone hand-coded vs. used a modeler- I grade
down for technical if they borrow models and don't
create them.

I don't consider the IRTC a compositional contest, like
a contest where models are supplied and we use them. 
I'm interested in composition combined with interp
combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
show originality.


-- 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother?  I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.

Post a reply to this message

in news:3B420E5F.519BBF8F@qwest.net Dearmad wrote:

> I'm interested in composition combined with interp
> combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
> show originality.
> 

Source File:
(none given)

I like to have a peek at the if there is something in an image that 
interests me. Not to copy the tricks, just to see how people aproched a 
problem. To me this is one of the most attractive aspects of the IRTC. 
With the use of modelers etc. there isn't much code to see anymore. 

Ingo

-- 
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

Post a reply to this message

"Dearmad" <dea### [at] qwestnet> schreef in bericht
news:3B420E5F.519BBF8F@qwest.net...
>
> Not a different view from your observation... but do
> you have an opinion on this?  For myself I'm addicted
> to animation, so having a modeler assist me is really
> helpful.  I've never graded an image/animation down
> because someone hand-coded vs. used a modeler- I grade
> down for technical if they borrow models and don't
> create them.
>
> I don't consider the IRTC a compositional contest, like
> a contest where models are supplied and we use them.
> I'm interested in composition combined with interp
> combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
> show originality.

Guess I should indeed have been more clear about my opinion on the matter.
I don't have anything against modellers - in fact I use them myself - but I
feel that people should first try to make objects out of CSG, and only the
really complicated models should be created with help of a modeling program.
Not only does it demonstrate a real grasp of abstract 3 dimensional
creation, but it will also improve parsing speed in POV-Ray and simular
programs.  Of course parsing speed means very little for programs like 3ds
max, which almost exclusively uses scanline - but that's a different
discussion.
So basically I think I should say I don't look down on an image because it
was created using a modeller, but I would rate the same picture better (the
technical aspect at least) if it were entirely CSG.
As for using other people's models, I completely agree on that.  Composition
is an important part of making an image, but is is only part of it, so
people should really be encouraged to use their own models, and not models
found on the net.
I like seeing that the artist really put time and effort in the image.

Zero

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> schreef in bericht
news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
> I like to have a peek at the if there is something in an image that
> interests me. Not to copy the tricks, just to see how people aproched a
> problem. To me this is one of the most attractive aspects of the IRTC.
> With the use of modelers etc. there isn't much code to see anymore.
>
> Ingo

Agreed.  A file generated by a modeller only shows the end result, not the
way that result was reached.

Zero

Post a reply to this message

Fortunately there are still those who make their scenes almost entirely
by hand. One name comes immediately to my mind: H. E. Day.
  One example:

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/drunkpat.jpg

  Also this seems to be made mostly by hand (eg. the woman):

http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-04-30/aseafort.jpg

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Well, in my case when I entered the IRTC there was just
TOO much code to show.  So far all the stuff I've used
generates script files but often I generate megabytes
worth of script in order to render my animations.
Nothing less interesting than looking at script
defining control points of Bezier patches... :o)

Even with my latest efforts using Hash AM I generate
script files, but they aren't the port through which I
modify things anymore, as they still are when I use
Polyray.

I guess I've always just contacted th author of an
image/anim when I want to know something, as they all
tend to be online and accessible.

-peter

ingo wrote:
> 
> in news:3B420E5F.519BBF8F@qwest.net Dearmad wrote:
> 
> > I'm interested in composition combined with interp
> > combined with technical tricks/shortcuts/efforts that
> > show originality.
> >
> 
> Source File:
> (none given)
> 
> I like to have a peek at the if there is something in an image that
> interests me. Not to copy the tricks, just to see how people aproched a
> problem. To me this is one of the most attractive aspects of the IRTC.
> With the use of modelers etc. there isn't much code to see anymore.
> 
> Ingo
> 
> --
> Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
> Pov-Ray    : http://members.home.nl/seed7/

-- 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother?  I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.

Post a reply to this message

Zero wrote:
> 
> Guess I should indeed have been more clear about my opinion on the matter.
> I don't have anything against modellers - in fact I use them myself - but I
> feel that people should first try to make objects out of CSG, and only the
> really complicated models should be created with help of a modeling program.
> Not only does it demonstrate a real grasp of abstract 3 dimensional
> creation, but it will also improve parsing speed in POV-Ray and simular
> programs.  Of course parsing speed means very little for programs like 3ds
> max, which almost exclusively uses scanline - but that's a different
> discussion.

Well interesting, I guess we do disagree then.  I
enjoyed my stint writing script by hand and CSGing the
hell out of things way back when, but for the stuff I
want to do now, I couldn't imagine writing it by hand. 
The sheer amount of data alone staggers me, and for
animation placing objects and angling joints would numb
me.  I can't say I'm a whatever tool works I'll use it
person, I hunger for elegance and ease in my solutions
to imaging problems and sometimes spend hours just
trying to make solve problems in a more elegant way
than throwing bajillions of numbers (so to speak) at a
problem.

Also, some models based on splines or bezier patches,
etc are just NO FUN to hand code. :o)

Yes, my early handscripting allows me to easily
visualize some things others will miss, but I no longer
do projects (stills included) that lend themselves to
hand coding.

> So basically I think I should say I don't look down on an image because it
> was created using a modeller, but I would rate the same picture better (the
> technical aspect at least) if it were entirely CSG.

I would too- if Gilles Tran hand coded all his stuff I
would toss in the towel.

However, all of this being said, I have YET to produce
ANY final still image with a modeller that I haven't
had to go back in to and tweak by hand, sometimes
MASSIVELY, and, now that I think of it, this includes
every single final scene I have animated.

<snip>

-Peter
-- 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother?  I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.

Post a reply to this message

HEHE!  Something jsut struck me as funny:

We're making computer generated images and we're
claiming to do them: "By hand."  I understand what we
mean and support the criterion as an idea, but to an
outsider they would just shake their heads.

By hand... ;o)

BTW: HE Day's image you linked to is a beautiful thing,
and even if I did something like it NOT by hand I
realize what an undertaking that would be.

-Peter
-- 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother?  I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht
news:3b422140@news.povray.org...
>   Fortunately there are still those who make their scenes almost entirely
> by hand. One name comes immediately to my mind: H. E. Day.
>   One example:
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/drunkpat.jpg
>
>   Also this seems to be made mostly by hand (eg. the woman):
>
> http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2001-04-30/aseafort.jpg

Indeed there are still a few, but they seem to become less and less.  Howard
Day's images are a great example that you don't need an expensive modeling
tool to get great results.  To me, an image such as Drunk Patrol is much
more impressive than anything created with an all-in-one modeller.
Thanks for the examples :-)

Zero

Post a reply to this message

"Dearmad" <dea### [at] qwestnet> schreef
> HEHE!  Something jsut struck me as funny:
>
> We're making computer generated images and we're
> claiming to do them: "By hand."  I understand what we
> mean and support the criterion as an idea, but to an
> outsider they would just shake their heads.
>
> By hand... ;o)

lol you're right that is funny :-)

Post a reply to this message

No .. In fact, I'd like to share something also .... I've just started using
Moray 3.3 and
what I miss from POV-Ray is the ability to pass parameters to your objects
....

Moray leaves you with cylinders and spheres that are placed in location like
x = 3.232345 y = 2.4356322 z = 7.342345 which is useless if you want to
"pop" the code
into the POV- Ray editor and start programming your CSG's.

but it is still a nice product!

-Ed


Zero <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:3b420153@news.povray.org...
> I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
> observation to share.  I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
> the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being
pushed
> aside by more complex modelling techniques.  Which of course means the
> modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds
max
> and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
> spatch, ...) to make a complete scene.  Where are the days when all you
> needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to
create
> CSG objects?  Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use
NURBS
> or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel.  Anyone else have a different view on
this?
>
> Zero
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Zero wrote:

> Where are the days when all you needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good
> insight in 3d space to create CSG objects?  Now it seems even for the simplest
> scene you have to use NURBS or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel.  Anyone else have a different view on this?

Not so different... My own take on this subject is that we've become more
demanding in term of visual quality and complexity. CSG based on the classic
primitives is limited in scope, as are procedural textures. These are great,
powerful techniques, and fun to use for long-time coders, but there are too many
things you cannot do with them, unless you restrict your work to the few genre
scenes where CSG-only modelling is still appropriate (like math/abstract, some
sci-fi etc.). People now expect from 3D the sort of modelling and texturing they
see on TV everyday : smooth, hyperrealistic or cartoonish objects and
characters. Straight things should be slightly bent, flat things should be
slightly dented, dirt textures should be really irregular and random etc.
Another reason is the present availability of free or relatively cheap modellers
and models, and the ability of present low-end computers to manage large meshes
and large image maps. When I started using Povray in 1993, CSG was simply the
only way to go (and a pleasant one), but this has changed a lot in the past 3 or
4 years.

G.
--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery

Post a reply to this message

Hi all,

I rendered molecules for two years with povray and all I learned in this
time were fading area lights, some backgrounds and focal blur.
Why? Because in my opinion, povray is difficult to learn.

Since I saw my personal Mt. Everest ( "wet bird" from Gilles Tran) I have
only one wish: to make an image, which couldn´t be distinguished from a
phothograph.
Now my 4th IRTC entry is my 5th complete scene and I have still difficulties
with modeling on the "good old style". But I don´t have any chance to learn
povray like Gilles Tran, it would last 10 years at least.

So I think to use modelers or even foreign models is acceptable if there is
a central model or technique, which is completely carried out by oneself.
Even then I have to invest several 100 hours for each entry.

I know, it isn´t accepteble by the purists. But I can reach my goal only by
this way.


Norbert





"Zero" <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3b420153@news.povray.org...
> I've been looking at the entries for the stills round and I have an
> observation to share.  I haven't gone through all the entries yet (I'm at
> the c for crushed), but it seems that lately traditional CSG is being
pushed
> aside by more complex modelling techniques.  Which of course means the
> modeller needs either one very expensive modelling program (such as 3ds
max
> and many others) or several cheap (or free) ones (such as breeze, moray,
> spatch, ...) to make a complete scene.  Where are the days when all you
> needed was a renderer like POV-Ray and a good insight in 3d space to
create
> CSG objects?  Now it seems even for the simplest scene you have to use
NURBS
> or sweeps just to be considered a good modeller.
> Anyway, that's just how I feel.  Anyone else have a different view on
this?
>
> Zero
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I have to support both Gilles and Norbert - when I first started using Pov I
refused to use anything but CSG - but like Gilles and Norbert quickly
realised I would have to learn to model and use meshes and image maps  if I
was going to achieve my artistic aims - for me the art comes first and I'll
use any methodology to get there.

Mick

Post a reply to this message

Hi Edward Leibnitz, you recently wrote in irtc.stills:

> Moray leaves you with cylinders and spheres that are placed in location like
> x = 3.232345 y = 2.4356322 z = 7.342345 which is useless if you want to
> "pop" the code into the POV- Ray editor and start programming your CSG's.
I always work with a Snap of 0.1, so I always have coordinates like
<3.2, 2.4, 7.3>. I don't like 8 decimal points either :-)  It is
neccessary sometimes when you place things that are rotated or that
should touch some other object at a weird angle. But it still beats
doing the trig :-)

- Lutz
  email : lut### [at] stmuccom
  Web   : http://www.stmuc.com/moray

Post a reply to this message

"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> schreef in bericht
news:3b440651@news.povray.org...
> I have to support both Gilles and Norbert - when I first started using Pov
I
> refused to use anything but CSG - but like Gilles and Norbert quickly
> realised I would have to learn to model and use meshes and image maps  if
I
> was going to achieve my artistic aims - for me the art comes first and
I'll
> use any methodology to get there.
>
> Mick

I can respect that, and like I said before, I use modellers myself, so I
don't really have anything against them.  And even the use of other people's
models (or in my case macros and textures) is acceptable, as long as you do
the biggest part of the image yourself.  But consider this: someone wants to
make a scene of his desk, with a computer (monitor, mouse and keyboard), a
pencil, a piece of paper, and a cup.  First he fires up rhino to create the
pencil and the cup.  Then he starts to search the web to find a model of a
mouse, keyboard and monitor.  He scans in a piece of paper, and uses it as
an image map on a plane.  Then he imports everything in 3ds max, creates the
textures, moves the models around a bit until it looks good, adds a few
lights, and uses the scanline engine to render it.  Voilà, 3 minutes later
he has a finished image.  This whole process can be done in half an hour.
Where is the fun in that?  Or the rightful pride in knowing you acomplished
something special?
An example for the other side is your own warm_up.jpg, Norbert.  Ok, so the
grass is not your own model, but I have no problem whatsoever with that,
since it is obvious you put more than enough time and effort in the rest of
the image, and like I said, it is perfectly ok to use modellers for complex
models.  Artists like you is not who I wanted to complain about in this
message thread.  Instead, I wanted to accuse the people who sit down in
front of their computer for half a day, and at the end think they have a
valid entry for the irtc.  IMO the irtc is about showing what a computer can
do when pushed to the limits, and not that a computer can make images in a
matter of minutes.

 Zero

Post a reply to this message

>But consider this: someone wants to
> make a scene of his desk, with a computer (monitor, mouse and keyboard), a
> pencil, a piece of paper, and a cup.  First he fires up rhino to create
the
> pencil and the cup.  Then he starts to search the web to find a model of a
> mouse, keyboard and monitor.  He scans in a piece of paper, and uses it as
> an image map on a plane.  Then he imports everything in 3ds max, creates
the
> textures, moves the models around a bit until it looks good, adds a few
> lights, and uses the scanline engine to render it.  Voilà, 3 minutes later
> he has a finished image.  This whole process can be done in half an hour.
> Where is the fun in that?  Or the rightful pride in knowing you
acomplished
> something special?

...

>  Instead, I wanted to accuse the people who sit down in
> front of their computer for half a day, and at the end think they have a
> valid entry for the irtc.  IMO the irtc is about showing what a computer
can
> do when pushed to the limits, and not that a computer can make images in a
> matter of minutes.
>
>  Zero


As you clarified your point, I think you are right.
But I would be happy if I could do it by this "professional" way in half an
hour.  ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> schreef

<snip>

> But I would be happy if I could do it by this "professional" way in half
an
> hour.  ;)

lol yeah me too :-)  Then again, I would be happy if I could make images
like yours, period.

Post a reply to this message

Dearmad wrote in message <3B4251B5.AC435215@qwest.net>...
>Nothing less interesting than looking at script
>defining control points of Bezier patches... :o)


Are you sure of that?  In one of my recent animations, I wrote a program
that generated an include file consisting of over five thousand "case"
statements, with each case defining the contents of several arrays.

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner wrote:
> 
> Dearmad wrote in message <3B4251B5.AC435215@qwest.net>...
> >Nothing less interesting than looking at script
> >defining control points of Bezier patches... :o)
> 
> Are you sure of that?  In one of my recent animations, I wrote a program
> that generated an include file consisting of over five thousand "case"
> statements, with each case defining the contents of several arrays.

ok... maybe that IS worse... :o)

-peter
-- 
http://www.users.qwest.net/~dearmad
Why bother?  I'm not interesting.
But... maybe "Ballet pour ma fille" will be.

Post a reply to this message

Actually some of the POV users may be masochists rather that purists.  The only
modeler I use is Poser.  I like to see what I can do with the primitive shapes
and freeware.  This makes organic objects very hard to do, and regretfully I
avoid them.  I can afford a modeler but I just don’t want to get serious about
spending the time on the learning curve.

Power to the masochists,
Bob


Norbert Kern wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> So I think to use modelers or even foreign models is acceptable if there is
> a central model or technique, which is completely carried out by oneself.
> Even then I have to invest several 100 hours for each entry.
>
> I know, it isn´t accepteble by the purists. But I can reach my goal only by
> this way.
>
> Norbert
>

Post a reply to this message

"Zero" <Zer### [at] yahooNOSPAMcom> wrote in news:3b42206e$1@news.povray.org:

> "ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> schreef in bericht
> news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
>> I like to have a peek at the if there is something in an image that
>> interests me. Not to copy the tricks, just to see how people aproched
>> a problem. To me this is one of the most attractive aspects of the
>> IRTC. With the use of modelers etc. there isn't much code to see
>> anymore. 
>>
>> Ingo
> 
> Agreed.  A file generated by a modeller only shows the end result, not
> the way that result was reached.

This is why I think people should expand on the idea of "source code" when 
it comes to modellers.

I'm a heavy Moray and Rhino user, so my source is often too large to 
include. However, a series of Work in Progress images, imagemaps, closeups 
of objects, textures, etc, can still demonstrate many of the tricks. Plus, 
this can be appreciated by all users. 

While we POVers are dismayed at the lack of source from the more complex 
modelers, I'm sure a lot of them regret that the POV source provided has no 
real meaning. POV source is great, but it should always be suplemented by 
more generic information.

-- Simon

Post a reply to this message