I'm not really all that sensitive about people critiquing my work. I
don't post images here so people will go "OOOHH, AAAAH". I know this
group is about helping fellow raytracers (and I am not new to
raytracing) just new to you guys.  The thing that bugs me is getting
"inside joke" posts when I am not on the inside of the joke. Know what
I mean jelly-bean? :-)

No harm done.

On Sun, 5 May 2002 01:10:25 -0700, "Thomas Lake"
<tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote:

>> HA HA that was funny T. I always love it when people post jokes that
>> only you and maybe one other person understand. Let's see if you can
>> decrypt this one...FYAYMAMA2
>
>Sorry I didn't realize you were new here, from that perspective I can see
>how you would interpret my message as an insult. As Alastair pointed out
>YKYBRTLW stands for "You Know You've Been Raytracing Too Long When..." Its
>and inside joke around here.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Actually, your comment is TOTALLY FUNNY! And it reflects my point
exactly. Is it possible to go "beyond realistic"? I think it is not
only possible but mandatory for the artist.
There are alot of things in reality that, if you were to do an
artistic rendering of them, people would not believe you.
Artists are challenged by the non-artistic viewer to make reality MORE
REAL. for them. Could that be due to the non-artist's lack of
perception? Probably. That's why the world needs art. To help the
perceptually-challenged folks understand reality a little better. 
(This is just my opinion)

Does that make sense?

--Blane

On Sat, 4 May 2002 18:49:30 -0700, "Thomas Lake"
<tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote:

>> Just wondering if we have reached a saturation point.  Is it possible
>> to improve on this without using a camara?
>
>You mean the quality of the rendering? Hard to say I don't wonder into too
>many refractive spheres on infinite checkered planes while wondering through
>the fog with my camera, so I can't really say how much more realistic this
>can get. Frankly if I encountered such a scene in real life my first thought
>would be YKYBRTLW.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.3 ambient_light 0 }
#default { finish { ambient 0 } }
// Mean distance of the sphere from your face: 800E+6 km = 8000000E+2
units
//sphere's diameter is approx 1.4E6km = 1.4E4 = 14000 units
// use an area light to simulate pregnant woman balloon skin
light_source { <0,0,-8000000> color rgb <1,1,0.85> 
               area_light x*14000, y*14000,3,3 adaptive 1 jitter
               rotate y*-30 }
//light_source { <5000000,0,-8000000> color rgb <1,1,0.85>  }

// place the camera as close to pregnant sphere as possible in order
to give the effect of impending explosion.
camera { location <0,0,-40000.000069>
         look_at <0,0,0> }

On 5 May 2002 02:15:29 -0400, Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:

>That finish that you've used looks like a really good baloon texture,
>looks like it's going to go BANG - and it's too close to my face:-)
>
>-- 
>sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
><50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/  * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
>light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\(    ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1} 
>/*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~  -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */

Post a reply to this message