On Mon, 1 May 2000 11:40:30 -0400, "Ross Litscher"
<lit### [at] osuedu> wrote:

>There's something about the droids being right in the middle that makes me
>hear voices of past art teachers screaming "bullseye."

Your art teachers enthusiastically played darts in class?   :)

Seriously, the centering doesn't bother me in this image. If you
assume that the droids are coming at the camera, which I think they
are. It just adds to the feeling of terror they must instill in the
drunks they are searching, because the frontmost droid looks as if he
is about to run overtop of you, and he couldn't care less.    :)

For the record, the frontmost droid is not totally centered, but a
little low and to the right. If you assume that it is flying in
formation with the one behind, this suggests a trajectory for their
flight. If they are coming toward the camera, the front droid is also
going downward, and toward the viewer's right.

By the way, there are no composition rules, only suggestions.

>One question, are the droids finding him, or passing him by because they
>can't see him either? are they heading away from the camera?

As I've said already, I think they are coming toward the camera. I
also don't think they have found him, because their "take down" lights
aren't on.   :)

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

You must be tired of overwhelming positive feedback already. Unfortunately
I can't be an exception. I will try, however, to be more objective (so no
"wonderful!", "outstanding!" or "perfect!" screams this time, sorry :) ).

  I must say that this is one of the best POV-Ray images I have ever seen.
And I don't say this very frequently.
  Deducing from your previous posts I think this image is made entirely or
mostly by hand. I just can't understand how can you do this even using
a high-end modeller in just a couple of months (as a hobby, not as a paid
job). The richness of details is almost overwhelming. The amount of work
spent on this image is truely admirable.
  And of course the amount of work spent can't be the only thing that makes
an image good. The ability to create and place objects, designing the whole
scene, setting up lighting, texturing, etc. is the most important part of
the process. It definitely requires talent.
  Also the ability to use some of the most difficult features of povray
such as the atmospheric effects seen in the image in an almost perfect way
shows an admirable knowledge of the program.
  This is one of those images that can be proudly shown to all 3D-Studio
and other high-end modeller users to show the possibilites of a free
raytracer.

  I don't think I'll never learn to make images like this.
  Would you, however, be willing to write some tutorial about your
techniques?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

I wish I were as observant as you. And they say that people with small
writing pay attention to details. I guess I'm the exception.

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote

> >There's something about the droids being right in the middle that makes
me
> >hear voices of past art teachers screaming "bullseye."
>
> Your art teachers enthusiastically played darts in class?   :)
>

yes, if my paintings had something predominantly in the middle of them, they
would get darts(if not globs of paint) thrown at them. okay, not really. but
they would give me some pointers on how to make things more interesting for
the viewer.

>
> For the record, the frontmost droid is not totally centered, but a
> little low and to the right. If you assume that it is flying in
> formation with the one behind, this suggests a trajectory for their
> flight. If they are coming toward the camera, the front droid is also
> going downward, and toward the viewer's right.


you're right, but the droids as a whole are pretty much in the middle of the
image. the hints of motion help lessen this, so it's not totally bad at all.
just something that caught my attention. I'm more questioning of how i only
see the left 3/5 of the image when i casually look at it.


>
> By the way, there are no composition rules, only suggestions.
>


yeah, but the suggestions have validity in most cases. they often seem to
make the image more interesting. I think that if H.E. (what is your first
name anyway? or do your friends just call you H.E. all the time...) really
wants to kick some ass, he should incorporate more traditional artistic
knowledge with his nice rendering and modelling knowledge. I'm no genius on
the topic at all, so take my opinions with a grain of salt or toss em in
/dev/null.



ross

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 1 May 2000 13:57:02 -0400, "Ross Litscher"
<lit### [at] osuedu> wrote:

>you're right, but the droids as a whole are pretty much in the middle of the
>image. the hints of motion help lessen this, so it's not totally bad at all.
>just something that caught my attention. I'm more questioning of how i only
>see the left 3/5 of the image when i casually look at it.

I was wondering about your tendency to do this also.  :)

In your previous post, you mentioned how the rays of light drew your
eyes toward the droid, only to be pulled away by the railing in the
corner. Funny, my attention tend to stay focused on the droid.
Perhaps, it the instinctive impulse to keep an eye on an apparently
moving object to make sure I don't get run over.     :)

Seriously, if the image were a bit lighter (a gamma adjustment), the
imbalance is much less. It might also be worth trying to add something
to the right hand side of the image to balance it more. Perhaps add a
small amount of light to that side? We wouldn't want too much light,
because it would destroy the concept of the drunk hiding in the
shadows.

>> By the way, there are no composition rules, only suggestions.
>
>yeah, but the suggestions have validity in most cases. they often seem to
>make the image more interesting. 

The other side of this coin was expressed fairly well by a comment
made by a highly respected National Geographic photographer:

  "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."

I'll let everyone think about that. It applies to POV renderings as
well.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 May 2000 14:25:59 -0400, Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom>
wrote:

>Seriously, if the image were a bit lighter (a gamma adjustment), the
>imbalance is much less. It might also be worth trying to add something
>to the right hand side of the image to balance it more. 

On second thought, perhaps a simple gamma adjustment is all I would
attempt. The only trouble is not knowing what gamma setting other
people have their machines set to. It might look perfect on H.E.'s
machine already.

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message

>   "If you ever shoot a roll of film and all the resulting photos are
> pretty, sharp, and well exposed - you've failed."

Perhaps for a magazine that attempts to capture a believable reality, this
is true. But for H.E. Day and other artists, "believable" doesn't
necessarily come into play. For them it is often far better to capture the
unbelievable POV-Rayality of a given scene.

--
Dan D.

Post a reply to this message

>  The buildings are what trouble me most.  Identical.
> I can see how they show up better being so much in the background
> however explaining them to be such clones might be difficult to pass off.
> Didn't someone mention that before? Anyway, that's my only criticism.

I don't see what the problem is.  I guess what I was trying to get across was a
regimented city that had decayed into dirt and slime.  Anyway, some of those new
apartment building all look the same, right?

--
H.E. Day

Post a reply to this message

> Excellent work! Any criticisms would be really picky...
> Does that green display say "2001"?

Actually, yes, it does.  2001 Drake Drive. It's my old address in
Oakland.  Sorta an in-joke.

--
H.E. Day

Post a reply to this message

>   Very nice work, H.E.! I wouldn't be too concerned with comparisons of
> other artists' work. That would be like saying which individual piece of
> music makes one classical composer better than another. I prefer to
> critique someone's work on its own merits.

I'm very insecure. :->

>   I like the overall lighting of the scene. Looks like an early morning
> roundup of the City's derelicts (for lack of a nicer term). On my
> monitor it's hard to make out the hunched figure wearing the A's cap
> unless I crank up the gamma, though. Could be a scene out of "Blade
> Runner", although most outdoor scenes in that movie took place at night.

Nope, it is early morning.  I guess I designed it with all my monitor's
settings to the max.  That might be the problem.

--
H.E. Day

Post a reply to this message