 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] msn com>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Loki wrote:
> > A point on composition though. The symmetry of the road, signs and
> > so on is very eyecatching. The use of converging lines in film is
> > common, to draw the eye to the point of interest. My only criticism
> > here is that there is nothing at the convergence in this pic
>
> Hey! That's a boring traffic-control camera! Wait for the coming
> renders at car perspective, like you suggested.
He he, nope, I can't wait... ;) Good stuff mate.
L
-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Hudson wrote:
> I spent a year in Germany while in the (US) army in the early 60's.
> There was no speed limit on the autobahns. :-) Ordinary streets yes,
> autobhan no.
> Of course, being 45 years ago, this may have changed by now. Our German
> friends in these newsgroups can correct me if this is so. ;-)
There are speed limits on the "autobahns" in these days. But when you're
lucky you can still find some parts that don't have any speed limits.
But it isn't fun to drive, because today the "autobahns" are too crowded
and you have to be so careful to survive. ;-)
Just my two eurocents,
Bonsai
--
<--------------------------->
___ __ __ _ ___ ___ _
| _ ) \ \( ) _) _ )( )
| _ \() |\ \ |\ \/ _ \| |
|___/__/_)\__)___)/ \_)_)
www.b0n541.net
<--------------------------->
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen McAvoy wrote:
> This goes down the old "we see what we expect to see" road, which is
> fascinating.
All it takes for me, is that I get "turned around" in my sense of
directions. Suddenly an environment I am used to "looks totally
strange". Yesterday I was walking around a park here called Marcus
Garvey Gardens. It lies directly across 5th Avenue. The avenue just
stops at one side then continues again on the other side. I was on the
north side of the park where 5th abutts but I *thought* I was on the
south side. Total disorientation.
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 loved Huxley's writings on art. I especially liked the line that went
something like: "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then surely
draperies are the opiate of painters". Loved his discussion of the late
work of Goya.
>
>
>>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.
>
I haven't seen the program. I happened to read a bit about it recently,
just what I could find on the web, but I didn't really dig in. Put it
off to later then lost the link. I think it is pretty interesting
though. I had been trying turn up anything I could on the subject of
Vermeer, and/or the Dutch painting of his time, and mirrors, in the hope
that I could make some connections vis-a-vis Rene Bui's entry in POVCOMP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
