This is probably going to look incredibly dark, but I'm not a code 
monkey, and had to cobble together a .ini file as best I could to get 
this to render.  I should have probably rendered it at 320x240 rather 
than 320x200 as well, but never mind, we'll see what happens to the next 
scene file Tor sends me.

For those interested in such things, it took about 1h 23m to render the 
72 frames in this anim.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Pigment_Rotate.mpg' (339 KB)

Jamie Davison <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:

> This is probably going to look incredibly dark, but I'm not a code 
> monkey, and had to cobble together a .ini file as best I could to get 
> this to render.  I should have probably rendered it at 320x240 rather 
> than 320x200 as well, but never mind, we'll see what happens to the next 
> scene file Tor sends me.

> For those interested in such things, it took about 1h 23m to render the 
> 72 frames in this anim.


Hmm, claymation maggots?  It's a little fast to tell what's really
happening.  What kind of pigment was used to generate that thing?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Woah, that's messing with my head!

I was expecting it to move in more of a splash-like way, because that's what
the still looked like. Though this is also good (in a mind bendingly strange
way!).

I like it :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Nice stuff! Pity you couldn't get it to repeat smoothly.
If you removed the texture and filled it with emitting media, it might just
look like a fireball... (Hint)

Nekar
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.15465847ec36dde49898d1@news.povray.org...
> This is probably going to look incredibly dark, but I'm not a code
> monkey, and had to cobble together a .ini file as best I could to get
> this to render.  I should have probably rendered it at 320x240 rather
> than 320x200 as well, but never mind, we'll see what happens to the next
> scene file Tor sends me.
>
> For those interested in such things, it took about 1h 23m to render the
> 72 frames in this anim.
>
> Bye for now,
>      Jamie.
>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:09:39 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote...
> Nice stuff! Pity you couldn't get it to repeat smoothly.
> If you removed the texture and filled it with emitting media, it might just
> look like a fireball... (Hint)

I tried to compile a version that ping-ponged, but to be honest, it 
looked crap.

And for the media idea, you'd have to ask Tor Olav, since he wrote the 
script, I only provided the 1.333Ghz PC to render it on.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

Fascinating to see this.

But maybe I should have coded for more frames
(or less change from frame to frame ?) so 
that that it would wriggle(?) slower. 

Thanks for the comments.
And thank you very much Jamie for rendering !

(I estimated that my 100 MHz PC would need 
more than one day for 72 320x240 frames.)

I planned for another version with smooth 
looping (by sampling the noise in circular 
motions instead linear as in this animation).
But unfortunately I haven't found time for 
that yet.

For Geoff:

Here's the colour map I used for the pigment:


#include "colors.inc"

#declare Blu = color <0.0, 0.2, 0.6>;
#declare Ylw = color <0.6, 0.4, 0.0>;

color_map {
  [ 0.2 color Gray30 + Blu ]
  [ 0.6 color Gray30 + Ylw ]
  [ 0.8 color (Red*2 + Orange)/3 ]
}


And here's the finish used in the texture:

finish {
  ambient 0.1
  diffuse 0.6
  phong 0.3
  phong_size 5
}

(I don't remember if I made it or if I 
borrowed it from someone else.)


-- 
Best regards,

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://hjem.sol.no/t-o-k/tokpicts.html
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok


Jamie Davison wrote:
> 
> This is probably going to look incredibly dark, but I'm not a code
> monkey, and had to cobble together a .ini file as best I could to get
> this to render.  I should have probably rendered it at 320x240 rather
> than 320x200 as well, but never mind, we'll see what happens to the next
> scene file Tor sends me.
> 
> For those interested in such things, it took about 1h 23m to render the
> 72 frames in this anim.
>...

Post a reply to this message

> But maybe I should have coded for more frames
> (or less change from frame to frame ?) so 
> that that it would wriggle(?) slower. 

Do you want me to rerender with twice as many frames?  It'd be half the 
resolution, to keep the .mpg size down, but it should be easy enough to 
do.

> Thanks for the comments.
> And thank you very much Jamie for rendering !

Nae problem.

> (I estimated that my 100 MHz PC would need 
> more than one day for 72 320x240 frames.)

I rerendered at 320x240, and I think it took about an hour and a half on 
my new box.
 
> I planned for another version with smooth 
> looping (by sampling the noise in circular 
> motions instead linear as in this animation).
> But unfortunately I haven't found time for 
> that yet.

No problem, just email me the source when you get it done.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message