 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An image I did a while ago.
I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'frame-005.jpg' (97 KB)
Preview of image 'frame-005.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ger" <No.### [at] Thank You> wrote in message news:43d41089@news.povray.org...
> An image I did a while ago.
> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
Bl**dy hell! Put that PoVRay (Wings?) down, and get on with your day
job Ger! :o)
Fair play to you, that's a lot of work gone into this scene. Almost
brought a tear to my eye as I've worked on those very machines...
Now you need a Hardinge precision lathe next to those swarf bins...
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/modelshop/MACHINES/hardinge.jpg :o)
Excellent work, but it needs a little dirt... all over it. ;)
~Steve~
>
>
> --
> Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>
>
> Bl**dy hell! Put that PoVRay (Wings?) down, and get on with your day
> job Ger! :o)
Pure PovRay SDL, no Wings or whatever.
>
> Fair play to you, that's a lot of work gone into this scene.
I can't even begin to count the hours that went into it. Mostly because it's
one of those on-going projects. (Must have started 3-4 years ago)
> Almost brought a tear to my eye as I've worked on those very
machines...
>
Same here, that's why I know them so well :)
> Now you need a Hardinge precision lathe next to those swarf bins...
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/modelshop/MACHINES/hardinge.jpg :o)
>
> Excellent work, but it needs a little dirt... all over it. ;)
>
But, but, I have spend all this time cleaning that place :)
>
> ~Steve~
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ger" <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote in message news:43d428cb@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bl**dy hell! Put that PoVRay (Wings?) down, and get on with your day
>> job Ger! :o)
>
> Pure PovRay SDL, no Wings or whatever.
That's excellent work then. I'm impressed!
>> ...but it needs a little dirt... all over it. ;)
>>
>
> But, but, I have spend all this time cleaning that place :)
:o)
To be fair, our workshop was as clean as that, it was just the floor that
was dirty.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:07:59 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>An image I did a while ago.
>I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
Excellent image and modeling. Steve might have worked on these
machines but I've walked past them many times. Beside the dirt and
stains the only thing missing is a bench vise.
A scene for the “old school”, I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:07:59 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>
>>An image I did a while ago.
>>I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
>
> Excellent image and modeling. Steve might have worked on these
> machines but I've walked past them many times. Beside the dirt and
> stains the only thing missing is a bench vise.
> A scene for the old school, I think.
The vise is off camera to the right :)
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:00:07 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>
>The vise is off camera to the right :)
>
I should have realised :-)
Your safety screen, what is it? It can't be glass (safety or not)
surely? Perspex would be scored. BTW your point lights are showing in
the reflection. How long did it take to render? And how long using
would area lights take? :-)
All we need is the smell, now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:00:07 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>
>>
>>The vise is off camera to the right :)
>>
>
> I should have realised :-)
>
> Your safety screen, what is it? It can't be glass (safety or not)
> surely? Perspex would be scored.
It's "trouble avoiding, self thinking, intelligent" glass :)
> BTW your point lights are showing in
> the reflection. How long did it take to render? And how long using
> would area lights take? :-)
If memory serves me well this one took about 16 hours (at 1600x900)
I remember stopping the render with 15 lights per tube after ~24 hours.
> All we need is the smell, now.
This feature will be implemented in PovRay v14 and a half :)
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:53:58 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>
>It's "trouble avoiding, self thinking, intelligent" glass :)
As if you could afford high end mil specs :-)
>> BTW your point lights are showing in
>> the reflection. How long did it take to render? And how long using
>> would area lights take? :-)
>
>If memory serves me well this one took about 16 hours (at 1600x900)
>I remember stopping the render with 15 lights per tube after ~24 hours.
It is time that we had an other leap in computer power :-)
>> All we need is the smell, now.
>This feature will be implemented in PovRay v14 and a half :)
I developed a patch for this, but I could only get the bad smell of
envy :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> It is time that we had an other leap in computer power :-)
>
Running a PII 350, so yes, I think there's some room for improvement ;)
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:30:10 +0100, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> It is time that we had an other leap in computer power :-)
>>
>Running a PII 350, so yes, I think there's some room for improvement ;)
And you claim, "It's "trouble avoiding, self thinking, intelligent"
glass :)" :-)
Well expense is no object in a virtual workshop :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> An image I did a while ago.
> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
>
>
> --
> Ger
That shows an incredible amount of work. All in SDL, too, wow. In a way it's
a rendering of POV-Ray's ancestors (or really more like distant cousins).
Nice work. I'm still trying to imagine how long this must have taken to
model. It's like seeing evidence of an almost religious devotion.
-Stefan Sittler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
It really isn't bad at all! Now it needs some radiosity + focal blur to
get even better. With the render times you mentioned I don't think
you're going to fine-tune rad & blur, though :)
Keep up the good work!
Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice! Why don't you tell something about the different models? What'd
you make first etc?
Charles
Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
> An image I did a while ago.
> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
>
>
> --
> Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Smws wrote:
> Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:
>> An image I did a while ago.
>> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ger
>
> That shows an incredible amount of work. All in SDL, too, wow. In a way
> it's a rendering of POV-Ray's ancestors (or really more like distant
> cousins).
>
> Nice work. I'm still trying to imagine how long this must have taken to
> model. It's like seeing evidence of an almost religious devotion.
>
Thanks. It's an image out of a series of some 50 images (or it is supposed
to get there some day) and every image is an evolution on the previous one.
No religious devotion involved :) It just so happens that an idea evolves in
my brain over a few days and when it's ready for "the paper" I can have
most of it done in a days time.
> -Stefan Sittler
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles C wrote:
> Nice!
Thanks
> Why don't you tell something about the different models? What'd
> you make first etc?
>
> Charles
>
Like I said in a response to Smws, it's one image out of a series, so most
parts have evolved before this image. Like the entire surrounding which has
been used from the first image on. After that came the workshop, then the
workbenches, the machinery and so on.
It's a series that has been in the making for at least 4-5 years now and it
will take at least that same time to finish. I don't work on it all that
much. Rl and such. :)
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Brucker wrote:
>> I thought the outcome wasn't all that bad
>
> It really isn't bad at all!
Thanks
> Now it needs some radiosity + focal blur to
> get even better. With the render times you mentioned I don't think
> you're going to fine-tune rad & blur, though :)
>
One day I'll get me a new computer and then I will try the rad versions. I
have played with blur for a bit and it only worked in one (not related to
this) image. For the rest it just came out wrong. It's either that I am
doing something wrong or that blur is not yet there where it should be. The
former the most likely.
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
Working on it :)
> Florian
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
