 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hello,
I'm kinda new here, and I'm too lazy to check whether this is a new
idea or not (probably not), but I placed a silver fractal inside a
silver sphere, and turned off shadows.
here's the result.
--
moonshadow
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sbk2001.JPG' (105 KB)
Preview of image 'sbk2001.JPG'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SWEET!!!!
This is frickin awesome!!!!
How long did it take to rendeR?
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:09:52 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:
>SWEET!!!!
Thanks :) I'm still not sure this is a totally original idea though.
That's why I posted, I'm sure someone has come up with the same idea.
>
>This is frickin awesome!!!!
>
>How long did it take to rendeR?
I don't really remember, but it wasn't that very slow on my celeron
300a. It all depends on the settings (max_trace_level, anti-aliasing,
and julia precision) I also have a couple of anims with metally
julias...
--
moonshadow
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Bryan Garnett-Law
Subject: Re: metally fractal, 105 KB JPG - sbk2001.JPG (1/1)
Date: 29 Jan 2001 23:38:10
Message: <3a764532@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks great ;-)
"moonshadow" <kar### [at] dpghu> wrote in message
news:hncc7t0a1a0j6ghje64pjsbdsnb5u0aeqs@4ax.com...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
moonshadow wrote:
> >SWEET!!!!
>
> Thanks :) I'm still not sure this is a totally original idea though.
> That's why I posted, I'm sure someone has come up with the same idea.
[snip]
Sorry, here I must vehemently protest.
Alright, even if it was completely original, a lot of the beauty came
simply from math. Yes, I'm a believer in all that mathematical crap with
Benoit Mandlebrot and whatnot. But still you deserve credit for either
tweaking it or stumbling across it.
The thing is, in today's world, with 6 (or is it 7 now?) billion people
and 5000 years of recorded history, almost always someone else did it
before you. Especially in the last decade we now have the technology to
immediately tell the world we did it first. Does that mean you deserve
less credit because you did it second? Hardly. That's just chronolgical
bias. Now if it was some sort of major discovery that impacted the world,
like electricity, maybe the first person gets some "extra credit". But in
art it becomes more questionable.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
everything is derivative.
David Fontaine wrote:
> moonshadow wrote:
>
> > >SWEET!!!!
> >
> > Thanks :) I'm still not sure this is a totally original idea though.
> > That's why I posted, I'm sure someone has come up with the same idea.
>
> [snip]
> Sorry, here I must vehemently protest.
>
> Alright, even if it was completely original, a lot of the beauty came
> simply from math. Yes, I'm a believer in all that mathematical crap with
> Benoit Mandlebrot and whatnot. But still you deserve credit for either
> tweaking it or stumbling across it.
> The thing is, in today's world, with 6 (or is it 7 now?) billion people
> and 5000 years of recorded history, almost always someone else did it
> before you. Especially in the last decade we now have the technology to
> immediately tell the world we did it first. Does that mean you deserve
> less credit because you did it second? Hardly. That's just chronolgical
> bias. Now if it was some sort of major discovery that impacted the world,
> like electricity, maybe the first person gets some "extra credit". But in
> art it becomes more questionable.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saadat Saeed
Subject: Re: metally fractal, 105 KB JPG - sbk2001.JPG (1/1)
Date: 30 Jan 2001 00:30:36
Message: <3a76517c@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All art is original....... some people may crticize that photography is not
an art; it may be as much an art as painting. However, raytracing is a mix
blend of photography, math, ideas, and control. Some people make great
images out of simple objects. Other people, like me, making a simple object
look good may be an effort.
Its not originality of concept that matters; it is the effort to innovate
that matters.
((Everyone agrees that forgery too is an art))
Saadat Saeed
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3A764DF5.7E6611BB@faricy.net...
> moonshadow wrote:
>
> > >SWEET!!!!
> >
> > Thanks :) I'm still not sure this is a totally original idea though.
> > That's why I posted, I'm sure someone has come up with the same idea.
>
> [snip]
> Sorry, here I must vehemently protest.
>
> Alright, even if it was completely original, a lot of the beauty came
> simply from math. Yes, I'm a believer in all that mathematical crap with
> Benoit Mandlebrot and whatnot. But still you deserve credit for either
> tweaking it or stumbling across it.
> The thing is, in today's world, with 6 (or is it 7 now?) billion people
> and 5000 years of recorded history, almost always someone else did it
> before you. Especially in the last decade we now have the technology to
> immediately tell the world we did it first. Does that mean you deserve
> less credit because you did it second? Hardly. That's just chronolgical
> bias. Now if it was some sort of major discovery that impacted the world,
> like electricity, maybe the first person gets some "extra credit". But in
> art it becomes more questionable.
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:15:33 -0600, David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet>
wrote:
>moonshadow wrote:
>
>> >SWEET!!!!
>>
>> Thanks :) I'm still not sure this is a totally original idea though.
>> That's why I posted, I'm sure someone has come up with the same idea.
>
>[snip]
>Sorry, here I must vehemently protest.
>
>Alright, even if it was completely original, a lot of the beauty came
>simply from math. Yes, I'm a believer in all that mathematical crap with
>Benoit Mandlebrot and whatnot. But still you deserve credit for either
>tweaking it or stumbling across it.
>The thing is, in today's world, with 6 (or is it 7 now?) billion people
>and 5000 years of recorded history, almost always someone else did it
>before you. Especially in the last decade we now have the technology to
>immediately tell the world we did it first. Does that mean you deserve
>less credit because you did it second? Hardly. That's just chronolgical
>bias. Now if it was some sort of major discovery that impacted the world,
>like electricity, maybe the first person gets some "extra credit". But in
>art it becomes more questionable.
I agree, I was just hoping that I bring something relatively new to
the group... As I said I am too lazy to check thousands of posts, and
something like this could have been posted by someone else.
But you are right, I am totally paranoid about being original. :o)
--
moonshadow
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
moonshadow wrote:
> I agree, I was just hoping that I bring something relatively new to
> the group... As I said I am too lazy to check thousands of posts, and
> something like this could have been posted by someone else.
There is fortunately a small degree of turnover too. Repost in two years and
it will be original. ;) j/k, I think it actually was.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
