"Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote in
message news:39A### [at] schunteretctu-bsde...
>
> I only start feeling sad for the beast: no chance against so may robots...
>

maybe they're feeding/impregnating/washing it?

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Thanks for sharing the code, esp. the fur macro (i did not yet try it but it
> looks quite useful)
> 

Like I said, the included fur macro is not yet complete. An older (but full)
version is also available at p.b.s-f

> BTW, you link to the png seems to be extremely slow (2-3 kB/sec here).
> 

Well, as a poor modem user I wouldn't call that _extremely_ slow :)
But it's a local (Estonian) server, so it might be just a bandwidth issue. I
also often get rather slow connects to international servers during daytme.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Just too good and so very original.

Mick

"Margus Ramst" <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote in message
news:39A10369.AEE6DCB6@peak.edu.ee...
> Final, methinks...
> Kudos to Rune for the metal surface trick. The (very) subtle radiosity and
media
> effects sent render times through the roof, but what the hell...
> Source (requires MegaPOV) is in p.b.s-f and the 1024x512 original PNG
should be
> available at http://www.hot.ee/margusrt/
>
> --
> Margus Ramst
>
> Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
> TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

This image still looks good. Of course, I still have no idea what I'm looking at...
but I like it.

Josh

Margus Ramst wrote:

> Final, methinks...
> Kudos to Rune for the metal surface trick. The (very) subtle radiosity and media
> effects sent render times through the roof, but what the hell...
> Source (requires MegaPOV) is in p.b.s-f and the 1024x512 original PNG should be
> available at http://www.hot.ee/margusrt/
>
> --
> Margus Ramst
>
> Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
> TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/

Post a reply to this message

Looks like a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman attacking a family pet.

Jim


"Josh English" <eng### [at] spiritonecom> wrote in message
news:39A143E9.ECB6BBAA@spiritone.com...
> This image still looks good. Of course, I still have no idea what I'm
looking at...
> but I like it.
>
> Josh
>
> Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> > Final, methinks...
> > Kudos to Rune for the metal surface trick. The (very) subtle radiosity
and media
> > effects sent render times through the roof, but what the hell...
> > Source (requires MegaPOV) is in p.b.s-f and the 1024x512 original PNG
should be
> > available at http://www.hot.ee/margusrt/
> >
> > --
> > Margus Ramst
> >
> > Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
> > TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
> >
>
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
>
> --
> Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
> eng### [at] spiritonecom
> The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote

> "Christoph Hormann" <Chr### [at] schunteretctu-bsde> wrote
> >
> > I only start feeling sad for the beast: no chance against so may
robots...
> >
>
> maybe they're feeding/impregnating/washing it?
>
>


Aaaaahahahaha! Impregnating it. Oh man, we'd get along just fine :) I always
thought that this creature looked like it *was* enjoying this treatment.


that cracks me up.
ross

Post a reply to this message

Looks great !
It reminds me of the surrealistic paintings of Salvador Dali.
Well done !
Jens

Post a reply to this message

"Margus Ramst" wrote:
> Final, methinks...

I have compared the 3 versions of the image closely, and here is what I
think of the progress of the image.

As I see it, simplicity, abstractness, and a kind of "loneliness" were the
things that made the original image so great.

THE CREATURE
Version 1: Colors nice and subtle - slightly brighter than the gray
background plane. Creature strange and helpless looking. Rather simple -
fits well in image composition.

Version 2: Colors less subtle, more confusing and more annoying to the eye.
Creature more confusing and less helpless looking. In my opinion not as good
as in version 1.

Version 3: Colors bright and annoying, crying for attention. Besides that
slightly better than in version 2, but still not nearly as good as in
version 1.

THE GROUND
Version 1: A bit difficult to define - maybe cement with gold in between.
Nice and abstract looking.

Version 2: The highlights make it look more like polished stone. Less
abstract and dream-like looking. Not as good as in version 1.

Version 3: Because it is so bright, it is even worse than in version 2. It
now looks as though the scene is set on a bright sunny day - not good.

THE ROBOT
Version 1: There are two gray metals in the robot. A light gray for the most
of it, and a darker gray for the claws. This is nice and simple, and make
the robot stand out easily from the gray plane.

Version 2: The metal textures are more reflective or something, which makes
them stand out less from the ground. I also don't like the new shape of the
claws. It's probably because simplicity has suffered. The improvement of the
blue light is good though.

Version 3: The color of the robot is now equal to the color of the ground,
which is real bad. Also, the claws seem to be about the same color as the
rest - not good.

OTHER COMMENTS

I think it's really a shame with the extra robots you added. The unique
loneliness of the image is completely lost now. I also note that you
generally has tried to accomplish greater realism for each version, but it
has worked against you. The realism makes the image less abstract and
removes the unique feeling the first version had. For that reason I also
think radiosity is bad for this image.

So basically my comments can be cooked down to this:
The image may be more advanced and realistic in the new version, but it has
lost the unique feeling that was present in the first version. Sorry.

Man! That is the most detailed comments I have ever made about somebody's
image, but that is because I like the image so much!

Do you still have the source code for the original version?

> Kudos to Rune for the metal surface trick.

Thanks! It works nice in this scene I think, if only the metal was much
brighter, like in the first version.

Greetings,

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

I wrote:
> The image may be more advanced and realistic in the new version,
> but it has lost the unique feeling that was present in the first
> version. Sorry.

Don't misunderstand me though!

I still think it is one of the best POV images I have seen - it's just that
I liked it even better before you made the changes.

Also, obviously, the comments were my own opinions only.

Just thought I'd clear that up...

Greetings,

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated July 23)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> THE CREATURE
> 

I agree about the colors, they look less saturated in the test scene. I actually
toned down the overall contrast of the image because of this, but it wasn't
enough. I am generally happy with the pattern; I feel it makes the creature look
more organic and less like a toy.

> THE GROUND
>

IIRC the metal between the slabs hasn't changed from v.1 so it must be the
lighting. The stone is actually bumpy, but somehow I couldn't manage a good
balance between too smooth and too rough.

> THE ROBOT

I'm pretty happy with the claws, they are now shaped and textured like I
originally intended. The colour of the 'thighs' is what should probably change.
The only change to the body since v.1 is some (blurred) reflection, I think this
is overdone.

> OTHER COMMENTS
> 
> I think it's really a shame with the extra robots you added. The unique
> loneliness of the image is completely lost now.

The image was not really intended to convey a feeling of loneliness, just 
absurdity and irrationality. No, I think the extra bots are a satisfactory
addition to a scene that originally struck me as too empty. Other changes might
accomplish this, but I can't think of anything more suitable.

> I also note that you
> generally has tried to accomplish greater realism for each version, but it
> has worked against you.

Well, my intention was to put realistic forms and textures in a syrreal setting
and arrangement. I don't think realism would diminish the atmosphere of the
image, but I may have refined this realism in the wrong direction.

> Man! That is the most detailed comments I have ever made about somebody's
> image, but that is because I like the image so much!
> 

Thank you kindly, I really appreciate the feedback. I doubt I'll post another
Absurdity here. Frankly, I'm tired of it - and already working on a different
scene. But I might tweak it some more when (if) my webpage ever goes online
(it's still very early in development).

> Do you still have the source code for the original version?
> 

I have the original source for the creature; I should be able to restore the
rest without too much trouble. Let me know if you want it.

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message