 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Rocket Jock wrote:
>If you can't do everything you need to do on
>the first render pass, what's the point of
>using a renderer? If you're gonna retouch it,
>make the whole bloody thing in your paint
>program. ;) "One program per image!"
... actually, I didn't write that, I believe Mr. Cook did.
But that's not the point because that's not what I meant anyway. I said it
was cheating if you retouch an image in a paint program, not you shouldn't
use things from one program in another program. I consider myself to be an
artist and I enjoy using alkyds, acrylics and oils and I often paint from
life and sometimes from photos but I wouldn't scan my paintings and then
touch them up in Photoshop and then print them... because I consider that to
be cheating. Some people enjoy doing that and some are really good at it,
but it doesn't mean we shouldn't go to the moon. I didn't become an artist
because I like fighting fires. I became an artist because I like the smell
of burning rubber. My Dad likes putting milk in his coffee and sometimes
cream. My Mum thinks that's just awful and I think they're both nuts because
coffee tastes like dirt.
We have strayed however because I think the original question was:
>>Anyone ever managed to create realistic looking people in Povray? Could
you post some examples
>>of the "state-of-the-art"?
and then someone mentioned Poser and now the baby's missing and all we have
is a bathtub with some suds in it.
Like I said before:
"I have three images from quite a while ago (1997 is the date on the files)
that I got from Compuserve. I do not remember who posted the images but for
some reason I don't think it was the guy who actually created them. The
images are of a woman (he) called Sadie and they were very good back then
and still look very good today... I was just looking at them. He said that
he (the guy that was working on them, possibly -Bobby Dasler- if anyone
knows who he is)
was trying to make a completely posable version for possible use in a
movie."
Pez
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rocket Jock schrieb in Nachricht <3c0311f9@news.povray.org>...
>>Rocket Jock wrote:
[...]
>... actually, I didn't write that, I believe Mr. Cook did.
Oh sorry for that! Should have looked better. I knew it was Mr. Cook.
You are right, this has nothing more to do with the original question.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rocket Jock wrote:
> But that's not the point because that's not what
> I meant anyway. I said it was cheating if you
> retouch an image in a paint program, not you
> shouldn't use things from one program in another
> program.
I agree, and was just going a bit overboard with
my overzealous exaggeration...I don't have a
problem with swapping between 3d programs to
build a scene, but I do think retouching the
final render in a paint program is cheating.
> I became an artist because I like the smell
> of burning rubber.
Eh? Cognition failure. Burning rubber encourages
artistry?
> We have strayed however because I think the original question was:
> >> Anyone ever managed to create realistic looking
> >> people in Povray? Could you post some examples
> >> of the "state-of-the-art"?
> and then someone mentioned Poser and now the baby's missing
> and all we have is a bathtub with some suds in it.
Actually that is one thing I'd like to do; build a realistic
looking person using just primitives in POV/Moray. I just
need to work up the ambition. (And Brutus is an honourable
man.)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:44:30 -0000, "JPGargoyle" <jpg### [at] clix pt>
wrote:
>Well, thats just an idea. (a crazy one)
What do you have against isosurfaces?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
> What do you have against isosurfaces?
I'd like to see the formula for that...
...we are still talking about generating a replica of
the human body in POV, right?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Timothy R. Cook" <tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote in message
news:3C039400.5C906B7B@scifi-fantasy.com...
> Peter Popov wrote:
> > What do you have against isosurfaces?
>
> I'd like to see the formula for that...
>
> ...we are still talking about generating a replica of
> the human body in POV, right?
I'm beginning to think isosurfaces would be the easiest way - if it was faster.
With isosurfaces it's very easy to bridge the problems you would get with blobs.
--
- Nekar
http://nekar_xenos.tripod.com/metanoia/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.298 / Virus Database: 161 - Release Date: 2001/11/13
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >Well, thats just an idea. (a crazy one)
>
> What do you have against isosurfaces?
Me? Nothing. Why?
Best Regards
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:24:16 -0500, "Timothy R. Cook"
<tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:
>Peter Popov wrote:
>> What do you have against isosurfaces?
>
>I'd like to see the formula for that...
idat3d should do. At least it did for that human head 3D data on the
POV-Ray CDROM.
I am not saying it will be easy, but at least it will be sane :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:12:28 -0000, "JPGargoyle" <jpg### [at] clixpt>
wrote:
>> What do you have against isosurfaces?
>
>Me? Nothing. Why?
Because IMHO an iso would be the easiest way to do what you want to
do.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:5rk90ugsq4q3mas9a780eqtq0k36a5edcj@4ax.com...
> Because IMHO an iso would be the easiest way to do what you want to
> do.
Easiest in what way?
To me is easier to collect the point coordinates and build a mesh (I think
:/)
And wouldn't it need muuuuch more processing power to render it using
isosurfaces?
Best regards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
