 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Verm <pov### [at] thirteeen dynucom> wrote:
>>
>>Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?
>
>
> start :-)
He lost it, both his head and the start.
>
I need more elaboration, I'm thinking either "optical illusion", or "the
"universe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Beauty
Sure.
> Your favourite tools
Have always liked this one.
> Degradation
Too close to home!
> Something 2D in 3D
Sounds hard
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: "Pseudo IRTC" topic suggestions wanted!
Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:04:29
Message: <45b7bbcd@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hildur K. wrote:
> One suggestion:
>
> "timeless" possible interpretations: timeless, classic; running out of
> time; theory of relativity, speed of light should make time stand still;
> clock broke down, does time really exist?
>
>
>
Not bad, not bad at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: "Pseudo IRTC" topic suggestions wanted!
Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:07:40
Message: <45b7bc8c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Floccinaucinihilipilification.
>
Timely, but too hard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> One more vote for TdeG's TINA CheP
>
Still not catching the spirit of this one. Is this a plane tiling reuion?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> In the "New Topic?" thread in irtc.stills, I suggested that maybe the new IRTC topic
would be "optimism", in response to Steve's rather optimistic post on 1/14. I think
it would be a good pseudo
> topic, given the current situation. Any votes for "optimism"?
>
Timely, but I wonder if the portrayal of such inner states is so good
for a shortened time frame. For me it would work better as the next
topic. Or maybe announce it now as an April deadline.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:51:40 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>Bruno Cabasson wrote:
>
>>
>> Thomas de Groot already suggested :"This is NOT a checkered plane"
>
>Not bad. Not sure I really understand it, but not bad. My mind goes to
>optical illusions.
It could be a scene that just does not have a chequered plane in it. It could be
a scene that looks like it has a chequered plane but doesn't.
Just my tupence worth.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:01:14 -0500, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
> >>
>>>Primitive - what can you do with just one type of primitive?
>>
>>
>> start :-)
>
>
>He lost it, both his head and the start.
>
Deep!
>>
>
>I need more elaboration, I'm thinking either "optical illusion", or "the
>"universe
Good idea. The world's your mollusc :-)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> Seconding Verm's "primitive", I suggest to use only basic shapes such as
> spheres, cylinders, cones, toruses .. no isosurface, no mesh, no blob
> ....Just to see what is possible and encouraging more imagination than pure
> technique.
>
As much as I find this constant "return to the mathematical primitive"
thing annoying, I see how it could work in this circumstance. It's
quick and dirty, there is a sense of return to the IRTC roots, the
restriction of means almost always results in a kind of inventiveness
even if not great expression, (but there is not enough time for grand
scenes right now anyway), and it would throw some emphasis back onto
texturing and lighting as skills.
Verm's original suggestion struck me as meaning the artist must pick and
use just one of the primitives. Perhaps that could be a constraint?
Pick any primitive you want, but it's the only one you get. Also there
should be a definitive list of what's allowed and what is not.
> Another from myself: "The other side".
>
Not bad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:51:31 EST, "Bruno Cabasson"
> <bru### [at] alcatelaleniaspacefr> wrote:
>
> >In order to decide quickly for the topic, so we can start asap working on
> >it, I propose to make the dead line for suggestion/decision within the next
> >6 hours.
> >
>
> I think you should give it a couple of days as not everyone lives online.
>
> Regards
> Stephen
OK. 24 more hours until midnight tomorrow (French time, end of working day
in the US)
Bruno
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
