 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>
Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>>
> Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
Ohhhhhh, I get it 52Kb in a frame ;)
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Charter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't look like 52kb, But sure looks like a nice ornate frame... :D
>>>
>> Hee Hee, but it's "[52 Kb]" not merely "52 Kb"
>
>
> Ohhhhhh, I get it 52Kb in a frame ;)
>
Don't let it happen again. We take our art pretty serious around here
you know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks really good. I remember you posting a frame awhile back (maybe a year
ago?)
I really like the fact that you've made it look a little old/dented. Also,
while we can't actually see the light source, the reflections look great.
Was this HDRI?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> Looks really good. I remember you posting a frame awhile back (maybe a year
> ago?)
>
> I really like the fact that you've made it look a little old/dented. Also,
> while we can't actually see the light source, the reflections look great.
> Was this HDRI?
>
>
No HDRI. Default background. Lighting/camera are very simple, didn't
even use radiosity here, just a touch of ambient. (An earlier one had a
fly-blown appearance do to abusive use of area light.) Perspective camera.
The outer proportion of the frame is the starting point and then the
frame is compounded inward from primitives. (Working from the aspect
ratio of what would be the framed area as the starting point, then
building outward, would be a somewhat different thing, and, who knows,
might lead to different frame "designs".)
Simplicity is what this is all about. The texture is quite simple too.
On this one I removed the reflection. What you are seeing is the high
specular. The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations
are scaled granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play
of making the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote in message
news:429de405$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Simplicity is what this is all about. The texture is quite simple too. On
> this one I removed the reflection. What you are seeing is the high
> specular.
I guess perhaps I've been away from POV for too long. The specular really
looks good to me. :-)
> The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations are scaled
> granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play of making
> the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
Ahhh... Even though I often use subtle humor, that doesn't mean that I often
"get it" when others do. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
>
> I guess perhaps I've been away from POV for too long. The specular really
> looks good to me. :-)
>
Thanks
>
>>The dents are, you guessed it, dents. The color striations are scaled
>>granite + crackle. There is of course the old conceptual play of making
>>the frame the subject. What I was joking around with Mike about.
>
>
> Ahhh... Even though I often use subtle humor, that doesn't mean that I often
> "get it" when others do. :-)
>
>
Some scholars maintain that the title/file weight is actually a subtley
disguised, self-reference to the actual number of components used to
model the *inner* frame. But the artist denies any connection claiming
it is merely coincidence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Very nice. I have always loved these kinds of "fractals" (not sure if
that's accurate) which change element aspect ratio due to a consistent
wall thickness. I remember writing my name on graph paper as a kid and
tracing a spiral around while the outline became closer to a rectangle
with each pass.
I have hilighted this aspect ratio change in the past with diagonals in
the elements. This of course means layers, so the nesting effect is
destroyed.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> Very nice.
Thanks.
I have always loved these kinds of "fractals" (not sure if
> that's accurate) which change element aspect ratio due to a consistent
> wall thickness. I remember writing my name on graph paper as a kid and
> tracing a spiral around while the outline became closer to a rectangle
> with each pass.
I used to do that stuff obsessively.
The macro is not really to the point that it would support much
automation, but many of the basic components are there. The manual
needs right now include the adjustments in the z direction and avoiding
sequences of primitives that wouldn't make sense, or scaling of
sequences that wouldn't make sense. For instance there are concave
quarter and half-round surfaces. Also, randomly deflecting the course
of events to subdivide the rectangle into multiples would be a
significant effort for me at this point, thought automating those other
things I could probably do more easily. I may get the automation bug yet.
The intriquing thing for me is imagining all the "clever" possibilities
that the frame theme can take me in, then seeing what mundanely happens
when I actually do one. Again, the course of events, and the influences
that deflect it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
>
> I used to do that stuff obsessively.
Did somebody say 'obsessive'?
>
> The intriquing thing for me is imagining all the "clever"
> possibilities that the frame theme can take me in, then
> seeing what mundanely happens when I actually do one. Again,
> the course of events, and the influences that deflect it.
My game is to start and end with the same aspect ratio after several
reductions. Requires a bit more trickery than you might assume to do so
while making the pattern attractive and "honest". I did a lot of those
experimenting with fence and door patterns for my pagoda render. Ended
up just using "straight" fence and door construction and rendering the
patterns by themselves.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
