ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> was this done in pov?

Yes; my own compile for OS/2, but using the official Linux 3.1g sources.


> what did you use for textures?

It's all texture{} statements.


> have you attempted the iris or the gate effects? 

It is capable of producing the rippling "water" effect, but I haven't
added in the iris or worked on the "whoosh" yet.  (All the chevrons are
independently animatable and lightable, and of course the glyph ring
turns.  It can also be set to resemble the prop from the original movie,
which was slightly different from the one on the TV series.)


> by the way, aren't you the guy that did the fabulous original enterprise
> (orbit.pov)?

Yeah, that was me, thanks for remembering it.  My Enterprise model is
currently under revision, because the blueprints I worked from weren't
entirely accurate in places, and it will soon (I hope) be joined by a
Klingon D7.


> i don't think you post very often do you?

Not really, no; I have to juggle 3D work with a whole bunch of other
hobbies.  If I can put together one really nice image that I'm happy
with every few months, I consider myself lucky.


> how long does it take you to do a project?

Depends on the scope.  In this case, the Stargate itself took about two
weeks, and the reproduction of the set took about a month and a half,
whenever I could squeeze in a couple of hours at night.


> i'd be interested to know some of your texturing methods (modelling
> isn't a problem).

Any textures in particular?  What I seem to be doing most frequently is
to create a "clean" and "dirty" version of a particular texture, and
then make a bozo composite of the two, adding turbulence and raising the
omega and lambda, then scaling the resulting texture between 2-5 times
longer in the Y direction, depending on how "streaky" I want it to look.


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen <tto### [at] onlineno> wrote:
>
> Especially I like your work with the cables and the pipes.

Thanks.  I had fun with them.
 

> Only one little detail bothers me: There are some symbols on the
> "wheel" that is covered by the "V-cut outs".

I'm afraid there's not much I can do about that; I tried to reproduce
the prop from the TV series as closely as possible, which means
obscuring some of the glyphs.


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

Very realistic! The movie was kinda good, but from what I've seen of the TV
show IMHO it's kinda not... Interesting render subject nonetheless.

> I know it's still missing a couple of details, but it's not too bad, I
> think.

Yeah, about 6,988,800 of them! ;-)


--
David Fontaine     <dav### [at] faricynet>     ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

Post a reply to this message

Jeff Lee wrote:

[...]

Especially the lighting seems extremely realistic to me, outstanding
work!

> 
> > have you attempted the iris or the gate effects?
> 
> It is capable of producing the rippling "water" effect, but I haven't
> added in the iris or worked on the "whoosh" yet.  (All the chevrons are
> independently animatable and lightable, and of course the glyph ring
> turns.  It can also be set to resemble the prop from the original movie,
> which was slightly different from the one on the TV series.)
> 

I think, the water effect would be to much for it (would hide the nice
back wall by the way :-)

I remember a lot of steam around the gate during motion.  You could try
that.

> > how long does it take you to do a project?
> 
> Depends on the scope.  In this case, the Stargate itself took about two
> weeks, and the reproduction of the set took about a month and a half,
> whenever I could squeeze in a couple of hours at night.
> 

It's really amazing detail, is everything taken from "reality" or did
you model some things from imagination ?

Christoph

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
>
> Very realistic! The movie was kinda good, but from what I've seen of the TV
> show IMHO it's kinda not...

I was kind of skeptical of the show when I first ran across it, but it
kind of grew on me.  I certainly like Richard Dean Anderson's portrayal
of O'Neill better than Kurt Russell's O'Neil.  And some of the
storylines are pretty good.  What they *really* need is a decent villain
with some depth to him (if only Richard Delgado were still alive)...


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:08:13 GMT, shi### [at] gatenet (Jeff Lee) wrote:

>I know it's still missing a couple of details, but it's not too bad, I
>think.

Not bad?? You know what, if that's your 'not bad', I don't wanna even
see your good ones because that'll be the final nail in my raytracer
carreer's coffin!

Just kidding, it's an excellent image. I don't even want to start
thinking about taking advantage of MegaPOV features...


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

One of the best images yet.  Let us know what tools you used...

"Jeff Lee" <shi### [at] gatenet> wrote in message
news:395### [at] mailhostgatenet...

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote:
> 
> It's really amazing detail, is everything taken from "reality" or did
> you model some things from imagination ?

I took the DVDs of the movie and the first three episodes of the series
(which is all MGM has seen fit to release in the US, even though the UK
has the majority of season 2 out on DVD already), and went back and
forth through them, drawing out every detail I could see (having a zoom
function on my DVD player helped a lot).  Then I used CorelDRAW to make
up some schematics based on the drawings, and took measurements from
those to build the models.  A couple of things are "best guess", since
the objects in question were in deep shadow or only shown from an acute
angle, but I think I got pretty close.


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Weber" <mik### [at] pyxiscom> wrote:
>
> One of the best images yet.  Let us know what tools you used...

1. CorelDRAW 3.0, to draw some schematics (from which to take
   measurements),

2. Fontographer, to create a TrueType font of the glyphs,

3. A couple of command-line calculators, which I wrote to help me
   figure out angles and distances, and

4. OS/2 System Editor (equivalent to Windows Notepad) to do the
   actual modelling.

I think that was pretty much it.  Apart from POV-Ray, of course.  :-)


-- 
Jeff Lee         shi### [at] gatenet         http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3957C9C3.446B4982@faricy.net>, David Fontaine 
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> Very realistic! The movie was kinda good, but from what I've seen of 
> the TV show IMHO it's kinda not... Interesting render subject 
> nonetheless.

It varies from episode to episode...generally they are pretty good(The 
best SF show on local TV here, actually.), but there are a few which are 
just plain boring or have bad plot flaws.
They do tend to suffer from the problems of having aliens look like 
humans in costumes, but they also have good non-humanoid aliens. And 
most of the time they are interacting with humans on other worlds, so it 
isn't so bad.
They also handle language fairly well(the characters appearing surprised 
when an alien speaks up in english, for example, and having an 
explanation for it), though there were a couple episodes where they 
really blew this one too.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message