 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi
The title says it all, I think...
I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
and played with one or two new ideas.
Mick
*************************************************************
http://www.minda.swinternet.co.uk/index.htm
*************************************************************
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'Ruins.jpg' (200 KB)
Preview of image 'Ruins.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I have trouble believing those stones could stand that way without
collapsing. Not that everything has to adhere to structural stability in a
render however.
Nice flora and fauna scene and the colors of orange-brown sky with the greens to
contrast it makes me think of a nearby forest fire type of thing. Like this
might be a temporary oasis amidst the smoke.
Bob
"Mick Hazelgrove" <mha### [at] minda swinternetcouk> wrote in message
news:38b82f52@news.povray.org...
| Hi
|
| The title says it all, I think...
|
| I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
| quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
| and played with one or two new ideas.
|
| Mick
|
|
| *************************************************************
| http://www.minda.swinternet.co.uk/index.htm
|
| *************************************************************
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dang! Submit it!
And don't listen to Bob about the believability of how the rocks would
stand.. There are many such imposibilities in nature. :{)
David
Mick Hazelgrove <mha### [at] mindaswinternetcouk> wrote in message
news:38b82f52@news.povray.org...
> Hi
>
> The title says it all, I think...
>
> I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
> quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
> and played with one or two new ideas.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All of you images are really good. The only beef I've got with them is that
most all of your backgrounds are too bright, and detract from the overall
scene.
Keep it up!
--
H.E. Day
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A nice, flowing scene. Cool flowers. What's that under the fog? rocks? It's
kind of hard to see, but then again it adds to the mystery of the scene.
Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> Hi
>
> The title says it all, I think...
>
> I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
> quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
> and played with one or two new ideas.
>
> Mick
>
> *************************************************************
> http://www.minda.swinternet.co.uk/index.htm
>
> *************************************************************
>
> [Image]
--
Samuel Benge
E-Mail: STB### [at] aolcom
Visit the still unfinished isosurface tutorial:
http://members.aol.com/stbenge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 18:44:36 -0000, Mick Hazelgrove <> wrote:
>Hi
>
>The title says it all, I think...
>
>I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
>quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
>and played with one or two new ideas.
Looks good, tells a story, is on topic, looks real good,
makes you invent a sotry if you look at it for long enough,
it's going to be my wallpaper.
You should enter this it really is good, more for the
feel of it rather than the techniques used.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:55am up 23:47, 5 users, load average: 1.05, 1.09, 1.06
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Heys" <sou### [at] gcinet> wrote in message
news:38b85369@news.povray.org...
|
| And don't listen to Bob about the believability of how the rocks would
| stand.. There are many such imposibilities in nature. :{)
Yes, maybe so but I won't stand under them if at all possible (well, maybe not
anyway).
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, I totally agree.
I don't care if the tour guide says the danged rocks have been magically
resting up there for over a million years. All it takes is a random pebble,
or an eagle dropping a messy surprise from on high for a million years of
entropy to come to an end. I'd rather not be under there when that occurs.
:{)
David
Bob Hughes <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:38b9037d@news.povray.org...
> Yes, maybe so but I won't stand under them if at all possible (well, maybe
not
> anyway).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ignore all idiotic comment.
A masterpiece
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:01:11 -0800, "Peter Warren" <int### [at] halcyoncom> wrote:
> Ignore all idiotic comment.
>
>A masterpiece
>
I agree!
It's difficult to criticise something so good. I'm not too sure about the pattern
created
in the sky, but I can live with it and will learn to love it.
----------------------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
----------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think it works great! I say enter it anyway. I like it. How did you do
those plants?
Josh
Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> Hi
>
> The title says it all, I think...
>
> I had toyed with the idea of using this for an IRTC entry but it hasn't
> quite worked out as well as I had hoped. However I've learnt some from it
> and played with one or two new ideas.
>
> Mick
>
> *************************************************************
> http://www.minda.swinternet.co.uk/index.htm
>
> *************************************************************
>
> [Image]
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Wilkinson wrote:
> > Ignore all idiotic comment.
> >
> >A masterpiece
> >
> I agree!
> It's difficult to criticise something so good. I'm not too sure about the pattern
created
> in the sky, but I can live with it and will learn to love it.
I'd say we as POVers recognize the extrodinairy effort of making that level of detail,
but few
of us criticize as artists. If you didn't know anything about Mick or POV or
raytracing and
just saw it in a gallery, would you still like it? (I would, but I'm just saying.)
I think Peter is a tad overbearing in his replies and comes off as weary and blasé,
but I also
think it is good that he is not hesitant to tell someone if he doesn't like their art.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree that not all of the people who post and respond have formal art training, but
we respond
in more than terms of the medium. Sure, we say "That media should be darker" because
we know what
it is because we know (or at least can guess) how certain things were done. We comment
on levels
of detail and realism (or surrealism). Actually, it seems that for more complete
scenes we do
comment on it from artistic points of view.
Now the models that H.E. Day and Jay Raney (to name to two that immediately pop to
mind) post
aren't really artistic images. They're models and we comment on them from that respect
and we
leave the art out because it hasn't entered the picture yet (pardon the pun)
Josh
David Fontaine wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > > Ignore all idiotic comment.
> > >
> > >A masterpiece
> > >
> > I agree!
> > It's difficult to criticise something so good. I'm not too sure about the pattern
created
> > in the sky, but I can live with it and will learn to love it.
>
> I'd say we as POVers recognize the extrodinairy effort of making that level of
detail, but few
> of us criticize as artists. If you didn't know anything about Mick or POV or
raytracing and
> just saw it in a gallery, would you still like it? (I would, but I'm just saying.)
> I think Peter is a tad overbearing in his replies and comes off as weary and blasé,
but I also
> think it is good that he is not hesitant to tell someone if he doesn't like their
art.
>
> --
> ___ ______________________________________________________
> | \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
> |_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>
> "Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Josh English wrote:
> I agree that not all of the people who post and respond have formal art training,
but we respond
> in more than terms of the medium. Sure, we say "That media should be darker" because
we know what
> it is because we know (or at least can guess) how certain things were done. We
comment on levels
> of detail and realism (or surrealism). Actually, it seems that for more complete
scenes we do
> comment on it from artistic points of view.
> Now the models that H.E. Day and Jay Raney (to name to two that immediately pop to
mind) post
> aren't really artistic images. They're models and we comment on them from that
respect and we
> leave the art out because it hasn't entered the picture yet (pardon the pun)
I agree that some of us do respond artistically. But David (the *other* David) said
it's "hard to
criticize something so good." Good modelling, good texturing, good camera work,
whatever, does not
neccessarily make it good art to everyone who views it. Peter just right out called
any criticizism
"idiotic". Now obviously any CG expert can come along and say "Great work!", because
it is, but leave
people to their own artistic interpretations.
--
___ ______________________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:32:28 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>I agree that some of us do respond artistically. But David (the *other* David) said
it's "hard to
>criticize something so good." Good modelling, good texturing, good camera work,
whatever, does not
>neccessarily make it good art to everyone who views it. Peter just right out called
any criticizism
>"idiotic". Now obviously any CG expert can come along and say "Great work!", because
it is, but leave
>people to their own artistic interpretations.
Well I think it is up to the individual to decide what he/she thinks is "idiotic". My
feeling is that Peter was responding instinctively to what he saw as trivial comments
on a
great raytracing.
(I just made an interesting typo there, I called it ratracing :-) Freudian?
----------------------------
dav### [at] cwcomnet
http://www.hamiltonite.mcmail.com
----------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <qdbnbschb3pq8k62mmb73sb4uuij6fbpds@4ax.com>, David
Wilkinson <dav### [at] cwcomnet> wrote:
> (I just made an interesting typo there, I called it ratracing :-)
> Freudian?
Hehe, there was a section on the CompuServe forum called "Tray Racing",
as I remember. I think it had the same purpose as povray.off-topic.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
