Marc Jacquier wrote:
> Any link to listen?

His site www.primital.com has some samples:

   http://www.primital.com/pages/en/primital.htm

and here is a complete song (legal link):

   http://www.theborderlinemusic.com/primital.mp3

Hope you like it...

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> The center of the road (between different-way lanes, I mean) somehow
>  doesn't look photorealistic. Maybe it's too perfect - the fences are
>  totally straight, theier posts are all in nice line etc.

   Yes, the placement of the fence pieces is totally straight... I should
do something to make it a bit winding. Thanks!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Oddly, I've never been attracted to cars, never have owned one, never
>  painted one, only modelled one once and it was barely an offhand
> four hour shot at it.  But I *love* highways.

   I like cars, but not as much as I like driving. But I don't like
driving on the highway... it's boring: I prefer the city or rural roads.
I did a highway scene because it is easier to model than a city or a
rural road.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Are the trucks in this image not yours?

   Yes, but are very old and simple, recycled for the occasion (from my
IRTC entry for the NIGHT round). I tried some random seeds until they
all got placed at enough distance... :)

> If you're looking for suggestions, I think the Isuzus are beautiful. 
> They're models are ELF, FORWARD, and GIGA. Here's a FORWARD made into
>  a firetruck. COOOOL. http://www.geocities.jp/fd_iwate/tank2.htm

   I was looking for some ready-to-use models, but thanks for the link:
it could help if I decide to model one with Wings3D.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Ross wrote:
> excellent. my only slightest criticism is that the blue signs look
> like they are lighted differently from the rest of the scene. I don't
> know how to explain it other than, it looks like they were cut and
> pasted in from a different but similar scene.

   I think it's because the saturation of the image_map is excessive
compared with the rest of the colors of the scene. But that's easy to 
fix with the Gimp...

> the shrubs on the median between the two sides of the road look
> excellent

   Thanks!

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:34:45 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>I think it is mostly the foreground trees that give it away. It is not 
>that the trees aren't believable,
>  it is that they are identifyable raytraced tree "species".

Yes I see that now you mention it. I haven't used trees yet and they
do look a bit gnarly. 
I thought that the shadows were just a bit off as if the sun was too
close. But then I was looking hard for a clue. What decided me was
when I tiled it on my desktop as wallpaper. The symmetry is a
give-a-way. So I agree with Loki.

>  That and a certain regularity to the general "randomness"  and
>perhaps some flaws introduced by photography itself.  But suppose the 
>history of art had proceeded directly from painting to raytracing and 
>photography had never existed?

Does that exclude paintings made with the help of a camera obscura?
Which leads onto "no television" no computer displays hence no
raytracing!  Hmm! Big thoughts. I know, we suspend disbelieve. 
The pre Raphaelites never got started and impressionism leaked into
mainstream GUI's. The Dada school designed keyboards and all the keys
felt like dead fish. 
My head hurts I wish you had not thought that thought :-)


Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen McAvoy wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:34:45 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think it is mostly the foreground trees that give it away. It is not 
>>that the trees aren't believable,
>> it is that they are identifyable raytraced tree "species".
> 
> 
> Yes I see that now you mention it. I haven't used trees yet and they
> do look a bit gnarly. 

Yes, I later wished that I'd made that point clearer.  Identifying it as 
a raytracing had a lot to do with being able to assume it was, then look 
for clues.


> I thought that the shadows were just a bit off as if the sun was too
> close. But then I was looking hard for a clue. What decided me was
> when I tiled it on my desktop as wallpaper. The symmetry is a
> give-a-way. So I agree with Loki.

Yes, a photo with high degree of symmetry would spawn a different set of 
questions.


> 
> 
>> That and a certain regularity to the general "randomness"  and
>>perhaps some flaws introduced by photography itself.  But suppose the 
>>history of art had proceeded directly from painting to raytracing and 
>>photography had never existed?
> 
> 
> Does that exclude paintings made with the help of a camera obscura?

Oooo, good example!  That would mean an exceptional degree of empirical 
information, but still, no matter how passive the artist's hand, via the 
mind, it would introduce some regularity.  Meanwhile, the viewer, 
knowing the picture was the product of an artist's hand, would demand 
less in the way of empirical randomness before experiencing verite.


> Which leads onto "no television" no computer displays hence no
> raytracing!  

Spoil sport.

Hmm! Big thoughts. I know, we suspend disbelieve.
> The pre Raphaelites never got started and impressionism leaked into
> mainstream GUI's. The Dada school designed keyboards and all the keys
> felt like dead fish. 
> My head hurts I wish you had not thought that thought :-)
> 
> 
> Regards
>         Stephen

I assume you are aware of this:
http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/

Post a reply to this message

High!

Stephen McAvoy schrieb:


> Does that exclude paintings made with the help of a camera obscura?
> Which leads onto "no television" no computer displays hence no
> raytracing!  Hmm! Big thoughts. I know, we suspend disbelieve. 
> The pre Raphaelites never got started and impressionism leaked into
> mainstream GUI's. The Dada school designed keyboards and all the keys
> felt like dead fish. 
> My head hurts I wish you had not thought that thought :-)


to have invented raytracing?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

de news:4273c6e8$1@news.povray.org...
> His site www.primital.com has some samples:
>
>    http://www.primital.com/pages/en/primital.htm
>
> and here is a complete song (legal link):
>
>    http://www.theborderlinemusic.com/primital.mp3
>
> Hope you like it...
>
> --
> Jaime

Thank you!
yes I like it, this man is crazy but his incrustation of the voice in the
instrumental (back)ground is very sucessfull.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:26:01 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>
>Oooo, good example!  That would mean an exceptional degree of empirical 
>information, but still, no matter how passive the artist's hand, via the 
>mind, it would introduce some regularity.  Meanwhile, the viewer, 
>knowing the picture was the product of an artist's hand, would demand 
>less in the way of empirical randomness before experiencing verite.
>
I think that's shown in the Impressionist movement, if I understand
you correctly.
This goes down the old "we see what we expect to see" road, which is
fascinating. IMHO Huxley (A) was on the right path when he said that
the mind is a reducing valve to the universe. It enables us to have an
understandable view of it.

>
>I assume you are aware of this:
>http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/

I saw it when it was first broadcast in the UK. Hence the mention of
the camera obscura.

Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message