Hi folks.

This is my first ever attempt at making a ring. (Or indeed ANY sort of "real
world" object.)



Sadly, having spent ages offline doing this, I came back to find that
someone else has already done the exact same thing. (And much better than my
little offering.) Bum!

Andrew.

PS. Had big trouble getting photons to work... until I added manual bounding
to the gemstone (which is the intersection of several infinite planes - the
way I always make polyhedrons!)

PPS. The reason I actually set about drawing this is that I'd like to BUY
myself such a ring - or rather, have someone buy one for me - and I wanted
to illustrate the kind of ring I wanted. What do people think? Does it make
me look too girly??

PPPS. I wonder how many gemstones can just magically attach themselves to a
ring without any kind of "setting"...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'Ring1.png' (219 KB) Download 'Ring2.png' (217 KB)

Preview of image 'Ring1.png'

Preview of image 'Ring2.png'

It's not too girly, although I've never had one myself, so you better ask a
shop. The green stone is pretty. But I think the scene could improve with
more light (weak light sources from various directions). The next time you
post, perhaps you could - just maaybee, pleeasee - use harder jpeg
compression.  :o)

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3ea45949@news.povray.org...

> PPS. The reason I actually set about drawing this is that I'd like
to BUY
> myself such a ring - or rather, have someone buy one for me - and I
wanted
> to illustrate the kind of ring I wanted. What do people think? Does
it make
> me look too girly??

   Well, being a jeweller, I would say that ring 2 would be more
manly.

>
> PPPS. I wonder how many gemstones can just magically attach
themselves to a
> ring without any kind of "setting"...

  Firstly, you wouldn't get a stone cut like that unless you can get
something like tourmaline in its original form (what's known as
'rough'), and then have it custom cut to your specs. Secondly, you
could have it set so that it appears as though it doesn't have a
setting by having a groove cut out of the four sides of the stone and
then the jeweller would push the gold into that groove to hold it.

   Nice idea.

   ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

>    Well, being a jeweller, I would say that ring 2 would be more
> manly.

the 2nd one apears to be more manly to me as well.
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:3ea53f18@news.povray.org...
>
> "Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
> news:3ea45949@news.povray.org...
>
> > PPS. The reason I actually set about drawing this is that I'd like
> to BUY
> > myself such a ring - or rather, have someone buy one for me - and I
> wanted
> > to illustrate the kind of ring I wanted. What do people think? Does
> it make
> > me look too girly??
>
>    Well, being a jeweller, I would say that ring 2 would be more
> manly.
>
> >
> > PPPS. I wonder how many gemstones can just magically attach
> themselves to a
> > ring without any kind of "setting"...
>
>   Firstly, you wouldn't get a stone cut like that unless you can get
> something like tourmaline in its original form (what's known as
> 'rough'), and then have it custom cut to your specs. Secondly, you
> could have it set so that it appears as though it doesn't have a
> setting by having a groove cut out of the four sides of the stone and
> then the jeweller would push the gold into that groove to hold it.
>
>    Nice idea.
>
>    ~Steve~
>

Post a reply to this message

OK, so far I think we've established that ring #2 looks better. (I thought
so myself - that's why I didn't just stick with the 1st attempt ;-)

Haven't actually tried it, but I half wonder if it wouldn't look better in
silver...

Does a gem actually exist which approximates this colour? (I presume so - I
was under the impression that being natural substances, they vary in colour
quite a lot...) I'm not too obsessed about it being that precise shape, I
just want something that's fairly "square" (or rectangular).

And yes, the lighting needs playing with. (I'm hopeless at lighting tho!)

All comments regarding the floor texture cheerfully ignored :-D

Thanks!
Andrew.

PS. Interesting comment re the setting... the reason the image lacks it is
(of course!) that I didn't know how to model it :-/

Post a reply to this message

"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3ea58388$1@news.povray.org...
> OK, so far I think we've established that ring #2 looks better. (I thought
> so myself - that's why I didn't just stick with the 1st attempt ;-)
>
> Haven't actually tried it, but I half wonder if it wouldn't look better in
> silver...
>
> Does a gem actually exist which approximates this colour? (I presume so -
I
> was under the impression that being natural substances, they vary in
colour

peridot, aventurine ?

Alan

Post a reply to this message

> > Does a gem actually exist which approximates this colour? (I presume
so -
> I
> > was under the impression that being natural substances, they vary in
> colour
>
> peridot, aventurine ?

I've heard of peridot (but only as the name of a typeface ;-)

Never heard of aventurine, but then I know little about anything...

Thanks.
Andrew.

(Until a few weeks ago, I thought Brazil was in Europe somewhere... go
figure!)

Post a reply to this message

"Andrew Coppin" <orp### [at] btinternetcom> wrote in message
news:3ea58388$1@news.povray.org...

>
> Does a gem actually exist which approximates this colour? (I presume
so - I
> was under the impression that being natural substances, they vary in
colour
> quite a lot...) I'm not too obsessed about it being that precise
shape, I
> just want something that's fairly "square" (or rectangular).

     A square stone in the trade is usually called a 'Princess' cut
and a rectangular shape is a 'Baguette' cut - just in case you do want
to order either of these.

   As for green gemstones, here's quite a good page for the more
common ones available:

   http://www.mensjewelryformen.com/gemstonesGreen.html

  Of course, there is emerald too, but they can be *really* expensive.

> PS. Interesting comment re the setting... the reason the image lacks
it is
> (of course!) that I didn't know how to model it :-/

 Try sPatch, that's how I made my setting, but if you do, be careful
with scaling down too far - things seem to disappear!   :oO

  ~Steve~


> Thanks!
> Andrew.
>



>
>

Post a reply to this message