This image was created using POV ray and rendered in POV ray. It uses a nice
Chrome material on mostof the objects. I used pictures of Stone henge to
make stone henge and then i added a previouse work (the flubber character)
which was made using meta balls. It took forever to render at this
resolution because of the chrome textures...but it all payed off..

Please tell me what you think

N1h### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'stone_henge_flubber.1.jpg' (554 KB)

Preview of image 'stone_henge_flubber.1.jpg'

Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz celeron,
(400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.


Nick D
N1h### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> 
> Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz celeron,
> (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.

30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!> 
Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
render, but I think it'd be worth it.

(30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2 333
at 512x384)

Post a reply to this message

Waddaya griping about? It took me 30 minutes to download this image on my
2400 baud modem!

Scott McDonald <sco### [at] metrolinkcom> wrote in message
news:371406BC.B6D94EE1@metrolink.com...
> Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> >
> > Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz
celeron,
> > (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.
>
> 30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!>
> Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
> texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
> render, but I think it'd be worth it.
>
> (30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2 333
> at 512x384)

Post a reply to this message

I like it. However because of the odd subject it would be hard to figure out
what you were looking at without a description. I also like the chrome texture,
makes the scene more surreal. Also how did you make those stone pieces
completely in pov-ray?

Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:

> This image was created using POV ray and rendered in POV ray. It uses a nice
> Chrome material on mostof the objects. I used pictures of Stone henge to
> make stone henge and then i added a previouse work (the flubber character)
> which was made using meta balls. It took forever to render at this
> resolution because of the chrome textures...but it all payed off..
>
> Please tell me what you think
>
> N1h### [at] hotmailcom
>
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

Ya and it took me 7 days to render one of my images!:-)

David Cook wrote:

> Waddaya griping about? It took me 30 minutes to download this image on my
> 2400 baud modem!
>
> Scott McDonald <sco### [at] metrolinkcom> wrote in message
> news:371406BC.B6D94EE1@metrolink.com...
> > Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz
> celeron,
> > > (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.
> >
> > 30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!>
> > Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
> > texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
> > render, but I think it'd be worth it.
> >
> > (30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2 333
> > at 512x384)

Post a reply to this message

I'll verify that. This was one of the lengthiest d/l's of a Jpg I've
ever gotten here. Think one of the others was that mercury liquid/solid
image posted a while back.
At least this looked pretty good ;) so I won't complain.
2400 baud modem?! Upgrade! But unless you have guarantee of a good phone
connection only get a 33.6K modem, I have a V.90 (upgraded from 56K to
no avail) here doing 26.4K and d/l's from the newsgroups are even slower
at only 0.1K, sometimes less sometimes more.


David Cook wrote:
> 
> Waddaya griping about? It took me 30 minutes to download this image on my
> 2400 baud modem!
> 
> Scott McDonald <sco### [at] metrolinkcom> wrote in message
> news:371406BC.B6D94EE1@metrolink.com...
> > Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz
> celeron,
> > > (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.
> >
> > 30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!>
> > Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
> > texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
> > render, but I think it'd be worth it.
> >
> > (30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2 333
> > at 512x384)

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Lake wrote:
> 
> Ya and it took me 7 days to render one of my images!:-)
> 

And thus begins the first annual lengthiest rendering competition...

My longest was just a weekend

Post a reply to this message

Just kidding, guy! I guess I should have put a winking smiley ;-) to tip you
off. In truth, I'm using a TCI cable modem.

Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3714262E.C1FC0447@aol.com...
> I'll verify that. This was one of the lengthiest d/l's of a Jpg I've
> ever gotten here. Think one of the others was that mercury liquid/solid
> image posted a while back.
> At least this looked pretty good ;) so I won't complain.
> 2400 baud modem?! Upgrade! But unless you have guarantee of a good phone
> connection only get a 33.6K modem, I have a V.90 (upgraded from 56K to
> no avail) here doing 26.4K and d/l's from the newsgroups are even slower
> at only 0.1K, sometimes less sometimes more.
>
>
> David Cook wrote:
> >
> > Waddaya griping about? It took me 30 minutes to download this image on
my
> > 2400 baud modem!
> >
> > Scott McDonald <sco### [at] metrolinkcom> wrote in message
> > news:371406BC.B6D94EE1@metrolink.com...
> > > Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz
> > celeron,
> > > > (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.
> > >
> > > 30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!>
> > > Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
> > > texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
> > > render, but I think it'd be worth it.
> > >
> > > (30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2
333
> > > at 512x384)
>
> --
>  omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>   http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
>  mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Dang, I need one too. Got a spare lying around there? Someone gave me a
link to a "streaming" video rendered animation (really great "Bunny..."
thing forgot its full name already) that looked like what bandwidth
would be in graph form. I could tell intermittently how good it must be
but that only adds to the frustration. I will definately look into this
connection speed of mine further. I should have about 50K, I know one
other computer with a 50K connection, parents friends. I don't know of
too many people with computers, much less a v.90 or 56K modem, and
certainly no ISDN, etc. So that's all I have to go on.


David Cook wrote:
> 
> Just kidding, guy! I guess I should have put a winking smiley ;-) to tip you
> off. In truth, I'm using a TCI cable modem.
> 
> Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:3714262E.C1FC0447@aol.com...
> > I'll verify that. This was one of the lengthiest d/l's of a Jpg I've
> > ever gotten here. Think one of the others was that mercury liquid/solid
> > image posted a while back.
> > At least this looked pretty good ;) so I won't complain.
> > 2400 baud modem?! Upgrade! But unless you have guarantee of a good phone
> > connection only get a 33.6K modem, I have a V.90 (upgraded from 56K to
> > no avail) here doing 26.4K and d/l's from the newsgroups are even slower
> > at only 0.1K, sometimes less sometimes more.
> >
> >
> > David Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Waddaya griping about? It took me 30 minutes to download this image on
> my
> > > 2400 baud modem!
> > >
> > > Scott McDonald <sco### [at] metrolinkcom> wrote in message
> > > news:371406BC.B6D94EE1@metrolink.com...
> > > > Nicholas DePetrillo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh by the way...It took about 30 min to render on my PC... 50 mgz
> > > celeron,
> > > > > (400 overclocked) and it was converted to Jpeg by adobe photoshop.
> > > >
> > > > 30 minutes is the forever it took to render?  <THWAP!>
> > > > Interesting piece, would be more interesting with a bit of a ground
> > > > texture and a sky though.  And of course would take much longer to
> > > > render, but I think it'd be worth it.
> > > >
> > > > (30 minutes, geez, the candle dragon pic takes 30 minutes on my k6/2
> 333
> > > > at 512x384)
> >
> > --
> >  omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> >   http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> >  mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message