 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Cool and somehow inspirational. Caustics at extremo!
I'm glad. Yeah!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can we see your source? I imagine the object is just a complex blob, but I'm
more curious about the locations of your light source (s) and some of the
settings. I'm still in the 'learning to tweak' stage of photons.
Thanks,
Dirk
TonyB <ben### [at] panama phoenixnet> wrote in message
news:3889cd9a@news.povray.org...
> From Latin, for "to draw from, seperate", the father of "abstract".
>
> Behold my caustics!!! (Based on the graphics I saw on Jacopo Pantaleoni's
> page.)
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Can we see your source? I imagine the object is just a complex blob, but
I'm
>more curious about the locations of your light source (s) and some of the
>settings. I'm still in the 'learning to tweak' stage of photons.
Right now it is nothing like in this image... I overtweaked... I don't know
how to get these bastards to work right either, it's just guessing, and this
was a lucky guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, what are you tring to do, start a revolution?
Long live the checkered plane!!!
Peter
TonyB wrote in message <388a5646@news.povray.org>...
>>I like, I like. (What is the pattern on the floor?)
>
>
>Thanks. #22 from checkers.inc.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think Josh raises a really good point.
Your latin definition was very cool and made me think,
but to make an abstract image is, I believe, very difficult.
If you look at David Fontaine's "Guess how this was made"
it 'looks' abstract but it is, in fact just "Torus Play."
(albeit very good torus play.)
Anyway it's an interesting pic and I'm glad to hear you
say you are going to continue working on it.
Later,
Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Your latin definition was very cool and made me think,
> but to make an abstract image is, I believe, very difficult.
>
> If you look at David Fontaine's "Guess how this was made"
> it 'looks' abstract but it is, in fact just "Torus Play."
> (albeit very good torus play.)
I agree abstarct raytracing is hard because whatever arbitrary
compisition you maight have in your head you have to be able to find
parameters for. This is one of the disadvantages raytracing has to
painting. And how would one even begin going about raytracing a Picasso?
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> I agree abstarct raytracing is hard because whatever arbitrary
> compisition you maight have in your head you have to be able to find
> parameters for. This is one of the disadvantages raytracing has to
> painting. And how would one even begin going about raytracing a Picasso?
The point is that you cannot reproduce Picasso's work with raytracing
because Picasso worked in a 2D medium. If you want to do that buy a
good paint program. If you wanted a real challenge you would try to
recreate his style but extend it into the 3rd dimension.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The point is that you cannot reproduce Picasso's work with raytracing
> because Picasso worked in a 2D medium. If you want to do that buy a
> good paint program. If you wanted a real challenge you would try to
> recreate his style but extend it into the 3rd dimension.
That's what I'm saying, it's much easier in two dimensions because you don't
have to follow the laws of physics (or whatever)
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think we are working w/ the law of POV ( Point Of View ) but some physical
features are present...
ie: The way a star explodes or caustics but that is all dependent on the way it
is used... NO...?
David Fontaine wrote:
> > The point is that you cannot reproduce Picasso's work with raytracing
> > because Picasso worked in a 2D medium. If you want to do that buy a
> > good paint program. If you wanted a real challenge you would try to
> > recreate his style but extend it into the 3rd dimension.
>
> That's what I'm saying, it's much easier in two dimensions because you don't
> have to follow the laws of physics (or whatever)
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___ ______________________________
> | \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
> |_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <388B64EF.ADBB22E9@faricy.net>...
>And how would one even begin going about raytracing a Picasso?
With an image_map? :-)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
