Tom Melly wrote:

> My entry for this month's IRTC. Isosurface for the big asteroid, a blob
> macro for the field of asteroids. Thanks go to others for blob people,
> galaxy and the Stardestroyer.
>
> Do you recognise where the composition comes from?

A Pogues album ? I can recognize Shane MacGowan behind the mask.
Just kidding. It's Gericault's "The raft of the Medusa".
Note : these people ate each other. You could have some spare parts
floating around.
And an antenna for the mast.
Good work.

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:39576C76.18949CED@inapg.inra.fr...
>
> A Pogues album ? I can recognize Shane MacGowan behind the mask.

Who's teeth, by co-incidence, can be modelled with the same isosurface I
used for the asteroid (the pigment would need darkening)..... A great album
btw.

> Just kidding. It's Gericault's "The raft of the Medusa".
> Note : these people ate each other. You could have some spare parts
> floating around.

Well, I guess given their lousy aim, storm-troopers might be stupid enough
to take off their helmets for a meal..... ;)

> And an antenna for the mast.
> Good work.
>
We are not worthy, we are not worthy....

Post a reply to this message

It looks like the front two guys are merged or something.

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> My entry for this month's IRTC. Isosurface for the big asteroid, a blob
> macro for the field of asteroids. Thanks go to others for blob people,
> galaxy and the Stardestroyer.
> 
> Do you recognise where the composition comes from?
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
news:39576829@news.povray.org...
| My entry for this month's IRTC. Isosurface for the big asteroid, a blob
| macro for the field of asteroids. Thanks go to others for blob people,
| galaxy and the Stardestroyer.
|
| Do you recognise where the composition comes from?

Uh, no, I don't.
This is a very neat thing, I thought at first they were throwing a paper
airplane though.  I think they would need to be looking much more straight
back than this.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> 
> My entry for this month's IRTC. Isosurface for the big asteroid, a blob
> macro for the field of asteroids. Thanks go to others for blob people,
> galaxy and the Stardestroyer.
> 
> Do you recognise where the composition comes from?
> 

There's a famous painting. Some men on a raft, a ship at the horizon.
Is it Turner? Or has it been a french painter?

Marc

-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler wrote:
> 
> Tom Melly wrote:
> >
> > My entry for this month's IRTC. Isosurface for the big asteroid, a blob
> > macro for the field of asteroids. Thanks go to others for blob people,
> > galaxy and the Stardestroyer.
> >
> > Do you recognise where the composition comes from?
> >
> 
> There's a famous painting. Some men on a raft, a ship at the horizon.
> Is it Turner? Or has it been a french painter?
> 

Theodore Gericault:
The Raft of the Medusa
http://artchive.com/artchive/G/gericault/raft_of_the_medusa.jpg.html


Marc
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

i thaught that the wilderness topic was supposed to be devoid of ppl?, or do
stormtroupers just not count?

Rick

Post a reply to this message

"Rick" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message news:39587ac6@news.povray.org...
> i thaught that the wilderness topic was supposed to be devoid of ppl?, or
do
> stormtroupers just not count?
>

!? - I'd be suprised if such a restriction exists, AFAIK it would certainly
be a first for the IRTC to set such a rule on a theme.

To my mind "wilderness" is a subjective term anyway. A wilderness needs an
observer, either in the scene (the stormtroopers), or the viewer of the
picture (you), or both.

An ocean, a forest - these are things that exist whether we look at them or
not. "Wilderness" is much more to do with our perception of something,
rather than any underlying physical attribute of the thing itself. It is an
expression of our attitude towards a place, rather than a place of itself
(IMHO).

Post a reply to this message

The restriction does exist. Sorry, I looked a couple of days ago at the IRTC
page and started looked at the pics and stuff (can we lynch Gillis?) and the
new subject stuff.

Tom Melly wrote:

> "Rick" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message news:39587ac6@news.povray.org...
> > i thaught that the wilderness topic was supposed to be devoid of ppl?, or
> do
> > stormtroupers just not count?
> >
>
> !? - I'd be suprised if such a restriction exists, AFAIK it would certainly
> be a first for the IRTC to set such a rule on a theme.
>
> To my mind "wilderness" is a subjective term anyway. A wilderness needs an
> observer, either in the scene (the stormtroopers), or the viewer of the
> picture (you), or both.
>
> An ocean, a forest - these are things that exist whether we look at them or
> not. "Wilderness" is much more to do with our perception of something,
> rather than any underlying physical attribute of the thing itself. It is an
> expression of our attitude towards a place, rather than a place of itself
> (IMHO).

Post a reply to this message

"Lt. Kettch" <AKK### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:395917B0.11F6E8ED@aol.com...
> The restriction does exist. Sorry, I looked a couple of days ago at the
IRTC
> page and started looked at the pics and stuff (can we lynch Gillis?) and
the
> new subject stuff.
>

"Untouched and unseen by humans. Deep jungles, primal forests, rugged
mountain tops, sunbaked deserts, boundless plains, isolated icecaps. Places
where nature holds sway and man is unknown or insignificant."

Hmm, I suspect that this was meant as a mood-setter rather than an absolute
rule. Anyway, Stormtroopers aren't human. So ya-boo-sucks. ;)

Anyway, I still stick with my original assertion that "wilderness" is a
subjective term that has no meaning without an observer....

Post a reply to this message