>Very nice. I don't' know if it's very abstract, but it's very very
>beautiful. Too bad you can't render an "idea" being born in the center of
>this. That would be abstract


I didn't know what else to call it. Surreal? Hmmm... you just got me
thinking... BBL...

Post a reply to this message

>Very good lighting effects. Is the floor image_mapped?


That's caustics for ya... :) No, the floor is 100% checkers.inc.

Post a reply to this message

>If the central luminosity were toned down I think it could be better,
although
>as is it has a photograph overexposure to it which isn't a bad thing.


I'm working on it. I wish I knew more about photography. I like taking
pictures.

Post a reply to this message

>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] panamaphoenixnet> 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