 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 wrote:
> I'd like to see somebody pull _that_ off without
> breaking the illusion. ;-)
That's one of my favorite Linux screen savers.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"I think these anchovies are spoiled.
They're not flat."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jellby" <me### [at] privacy net> schreef in bericht
news:qm2### [at] badulaqueunexes...
> [*] See signature ;-)
>
> --
> light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
> 9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
> 0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Nice!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot spake:
> Indeed, this has been done before, but for a little story I have in my
> mind, I wanted to test a couple of tricks in Moray. The result is rather
> nice I believe, so I thought I would share.
>
> Thomas
Yikes - that really strains the eye...
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" <omniverse@charter%net> schreef in bericht
news:440097e9$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Does indeed. A well done illusion. I wonder of the shadow of the short
> horizontal piece could actually be moved away at the right side? The other
> half of its illusion would put it into the air instead of being flat
against
> the tabletop. I'm probably not thinking of a good alternate placement for
> that shadow though. It looks fine to me now.
>
What about this, Bob? I moved the light, and hence the shadows.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'eschertriangle.jpg' (47 KB)
Preview of image 'eschertriangle.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <spamnot@<removethis> schreef in bericht
news:44016472@news.povray.org...
>
> Yikes - that really strains the eye...
>
<grin>
It does! See the other versions above. More strain!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote in message
news:440168ba@news.povray.org...
>
> I moved the light, and hence the shadows.
That seems the best way to do the shadow, with the horizontal tabletop
piece's shadow being almost non-existant it helps to keep the illusion.
Although, I wasn't talking about moving it that way. Now that I've taken
your image into a drawing program and moved the shadow lines around I can
see that my idea was wrong. It would have made the illusion worse.
The problem with having a shadow in there at all seems to be that it
requires two different ones, since the object itself is actually supposed to
be seen two different ways anyhow. So a single shadow only messes with the
illusion unless you hide part of it, like you've now done. And looking back
at your first posted image, it obviously would have been okay, except that
it seemed the wood pieces mostly laid down across the table instead of being
mostly in the air. That shadow really makes the mind think of a predominate
way it's oriented all depending on how the shadow is used. Ultimately it
introduces another dimension into the whole thing so you've got to be clever
to add that in as right as possible.
At least, I sure couldn't decide on any better way of going about it after a
little puzzling over the picture a while.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bob Hughes" <omniverse@charter%net> schreef in bericht
news:440178d9@news.povray.org...
>
> The problem with having a shadow in there at all seems to be that it
> requires two different ones, since the object itself is actually supposed
to
> be seen two different ways anyhow. So a single shadow only messes with the
> illusion unless you hide part of it, like you've now done. And looking
back
> at your first posted image, it obviously would have been okay, except that
> it seemed the wood pieces mostly laid down across the table instead of
being
> mostly in the air. That shadow really makes the mind think of a
predominate
> way it's oriented all depending on how the shadow is used. Ultimately it
> introduces another dimension into the whole thing so you've got to be
clever
> to add that in as right as possible.
>
> At least, I sure couldn't decide on any better way of going about it after
a
> little puzzling over the picture a while.
>
It is a subtle process. There are different ways in which you can decide to
show the object: As an "impossible" one, with "wrong" shadows (in fact, with
the real shadows); as an "impossible" one, with "right" shadows; or as
something in between. In my first image, I followed a combination of 1 and
3, adding a fake ground shadow to the upper horizontal bar. In all images,
the lower horizontal bar shadow is real, but hiding it makes the object
stand out better.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very cool image indeed!
I have been thinking about doing this type of image myself,
but it never has been more than a thought. Now I know it can be done!
Again, kewl!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"RusHHouR" <gee### [at] mailnu> schreef in bericht
news:web.4405d75c2118025b47d3ae5e0@news.povray.org...
> Very cool image indeed!
> I have been thinking about doing this type of image myself,
> but it never has been more than a thought. Now I know it can be done!
> Again, kewl!
>
>
Thank you!
Yes, it can be done. However, it is easiest in a modeller program (like
Moray) because you see what you are doing, and positioning has to be done
very carefully.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
