 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'wavy.mpg' (298 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <van### [at] erols com> wrote in message
news:3B1BA972.32CACD84@erols.com...
> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B1BA972.32CACD84@erols.com>, John VanSickle says...
> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
>
I hope Joe doesn't get tired easily :)
What is 'camera normal perturbation' ? I see the horizon wobbling.
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Roberto Ferrer de Amorim
Subject: Re: Test of two techniques (298kbbu)
Date: 4 Jun 2001 14:34:24
Message: <3b1bd4b0@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It was a very creative way of bashing MS. Really clever.
And that robot must know, since he looks like a medical robot, and he must
service Windows-powered robots all the time... :-)
Wolfox
> Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
> What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
the camera lens, so to speak.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:42:30 -0400, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
wrote:
>> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
>
> Couldn't resist the OS bash?
Do you actually play every animation frame-by-frame to check for MS
bashing?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B1C6501.922C50AE@pacbell.net>, Ken says...
>
>
> Sander wrote:
>
> > What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
>
> It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
> of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
> the camera lens, so to speak.
>
>
Doesn't that result in just only unsharp images? Imagine using a less
than perfect lens to take a picture??
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can't say I love the way he moves, but I like it as a whole. The text is
funny. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Normals in the camera statement can create anything from lenses that look
like they are cracked (crackle), to "3D" camera filter-effects that seem to
extrude the image in front of the camera. I've spent much of the last few
months working with this technique, and the possibilities are endless.
D.
"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
> In article <3B1C6501.922C50AE@pacbell.net>, Ken says...
> >
> >
> > Sander wrote:
> >
> > > What is 'camera normal perturbation' ?
> >
> > It is legal syntax to use a "normal" in a camera statement. Instead
> > of perturbing an object's surface you are perturbing the surface of
> > the camera lens, so to speak.
> >
> >
> Doesn't that result in just only unsharp images? Imagine using a less
> than perfect lens to take a picture??
> --
> Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dennis Milller wrote:
>
> Normals in the camera statement can create anything from lenses that look
> like they are cracked (crackle), to "3D" camera filter-effects that seem to
> extrude the image in front of the camera. I've spent much of the last few
> months working with this technique, and the possibilities are endless.
I like putting groups of various colored objects in front of the camera
and playing with camera normals. It can provide endless facination for
someone bored out of their mind :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3b1d8802$1@news.povray.org>, Dennis Milller says...
> Normals in the camera statement can create anything from lenses that look
> like they are cracked (crackle), to "3D" camera filter-effects that seem to
> extrude the image in front of the camera. I've spent much of the last few
> months working with this technique, and the possibilities are endless.
> D.
>
This sounds great fun: I should try it once...:)
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3B1D9805.D84E032F@pacbell.net...
>
>
> I like putting groups of various colored objects in front of the camera
> and playing with camera normals. It can provide endless facination for
> someone bored out of their mind :)
And tremendous fodder for the always-looking-for-new-resources abstract
artist!
d.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does he actually lift _all_ four legs at the same time? It seems a bit odd
to me ... :) Cool idea with the camera perturbation --- scene viewed thru
the patient's eyes, right? What software do you use to assemble your
animations, BTW?
~simenkv.
"John VanSickle" <van### [at] erolscom> wrote in message
news:3B1BA972.32CACD84@erols.com...
> Joe walking, and camera normal perturbation.
> --
> ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simen Kvaal wrote:
>
> Does he actually lift _all_ four legs at the same time? It seems a bit
> odd to me ... :)
Yes. My original concept for the Greb (enemy race in four of the
Rusty animations) was of a creature that walked in this manner.
> Cool idea with the camera perturbation --- scene viewed thru
> the patient's eyes, right?
Yes. The exact circumstances will be in my IRTC entry.
> What software do you use to assemble your animations, BTW?
CMPEG.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> Couldn't resist the OS bash?
I could, but I chose not to.
This is not the first time this message has appeared in one of my
animations. A gold star for whoever guesses which one.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> This is not the first time this message has appeared in one of my
> animations. A gold star for whoever guesses which one.
OOOH OOOH - Would that be a reference to the Idol Worshippers from the 77th
dimension ?
"BOXER SOLVES A PROBLEM"
As a wise man once said:
Of all the anims (aside from my own :-), I liked this one best.
Best wishes.
--
Duncan Gray
(warning: may contain traces of nut)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Duncan Gray wrote:
>
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > This is not the first time this message has appeared in one of my
> > animations. A gold star for whoever guesses which one.
>
> OOOH OOOH - Would that be a reference to the Idol Worshippers from the
> 77th dimension ? "BOXER SOLVES A PROBLEM"
Nay.
And that's the 777th dimension.
> As a wise man once said:
> Of all the anims (aside from my own :-), I liked this one best.
Thanks.
Regards,
John
--
ICQ: 46085459
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Nay.
Oh, I was sure I'd won me a gold star :(
John VanSickle continued:
> And that's the 777th dimension.
Oops - sorry ... I'd best go watch some more Rusty movies.
All the best
--
Duncan Gray
(warning: may contain traces of nut)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
