Hello everyone. Here is an image showing certain components I am working
on for a certain something :) I don't know if I'll ever get it done, but
I have every intention of finishing this scene :)

When I do get it done, I'll most definitely post the bridge macro and
tree source, both of which are isosurfaces.

Questions, comments and the like are always welcome~

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'trees.jpg' (15 KB)

Preview of image 'trees.jpg'

So, when did the tree-as-isosurface thing get solved?
I know of a park that could use a few good trees.

"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone. Here is an image showing certain components I am working
> on for a certain something :) I don't know if I'll ever get it done, but
> I have every intention of finishing this scene :)
> 
> When I do get it done, I'll most definitely post the bridge macro and
> tree source, both of which are isosurfaces.
> 
> Questions, comments and the like are always welcome~
> 
> --
> Samuel Benge
> 
> E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom
> 
> Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
> http://members.aol.com/stbenge
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

When I decided to rotate a bunch of isosurface branches along a cone ;)

Arthur Flint wrote:

> So, when did the tree-as-isosurface thing get solved?
> I know of a park that could use a few good trees.

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

>When I do get it done, I'll most definitely post the bridge macro and
>tree source, both of which are isosurfaces.

You've really grown attached to them haven't you? :) SamuelT. and
isosurfaces are beginning to sound synonymous already. Very nice work there.
At least at that tiny res, it looks realisticish. :)

Post a reply to this message

Well, that explanes that. Wish I had thought of it.

"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
> When I decided to rotate a bunch of isosurface branches along a cone ;)
>

Post a reply to this message

TonyB wrote:

> >When I do get it done, I'll most definitely post the bridge macro and
> >tree source, both of which are isosurfaces.
>
> You've really grown attached to them haven't you? :) SamuelT. and
> isosurfaces are beginning to sound synonymous already.

Isosurfaces let you have any object you want... that's what makes them so great.
The only trade-offs are a longer render time and a steeper learning curve.


> Very nice work there.
> At least at that tiny res, it looks realisticish. :)

Realisticish. I agree. It's not totally realistic, is it? Trees have got to be
the hardest thing to render. I'm still happy with the trees, though. It's a big
step from using a cone with a semi-transparent pigment on it :)

The parse isn't too bad for the trees, either. Each tree has about 100
isosurfaces rotated all around. Then I've got 30 trees, so that's 330 objects
making up the trees. Render time is a bit long. It's a lot faster than using a
bunch of semi-transparent objects for the branches. I might try to see if using
a bunch of opaque objects for the leaves is faster, though.


--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

>Realisticish. I agree. It's not totally realistic, is it?

It never is (unless you're HE Day, or work at Pixar). Actually, yours looks
like a hand-drawn kinda thing, with colored pencils. In that sense, it's
very realistic. :)

Post a reply to this message

Funny, colored pencils has been one of my favorite mediums to do art with. I'm
wondering what I can do to make it look more realistic.... Then again, I might
want to go with an artsy, fantasy-type of look.

TonyB wrote:

> >Realisticish. I agree. It's not totally realistic, is it?
>
> It never is (unless you're HE Day, or work at Pixar). Actually, yours looks
> like a hand-drawn kinda thing, with colored pencils. In that sense, it's
> very realistic. :)

--
Samuel Benge

E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom

Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial: http://members.aol.com/stbenge

Post a reply to this message

You have that artsy, fantasy-type of look now.
"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
> Funny, colored pencils has been one of my favorite mediums to do art with. I'm
> wondering what I can do to make it look more realistic.... Then again, I might
> want to go with an artsy, fantasy-type of look.
>

Post a reply to this message

"SamuelT." <STB### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:38ED5DF0.655AA838@aol.com...
> Funny, colored pencils has been one of my favorite mediums to do art with.
I'm
> wondering what I can do to make it look more realistic.... Then again, I
might
> want to go with an artsy, fantasy-type of look.
>
> TonyB wrote:
>
> > >Realisticish. I agree. It's not totally realistic, is it?
> >
> > It never is (unless you're HE Day, or work at Pixar). Actually, yours
looks
> > like a hand-drawn kinda thing, with colored pencils. In that sense, it's
> > very realistic. :)

What I saw was a truly "knock-'em-dead" children's book illustration, which
calls on a very different discipline than that required by film or game
animation. For that matter, the illustrations on game boxes ALWAYS look
better than the actual game graphics. So it all depends on what you want to
do with your work in computer graphics--is it a learning tool? A working
tool? An end in itself?

s.
--
sigh-sig [ http://www.homestead.com/siandabi/files/siandabi.html ]

Post a reply to this message