> I originally meant that PovRay is good at rendering objects but it is not
> easy to represent suggestions of an object. I can think of a few exceptions
> like an object with no image but with a shadow. It is things like painting a

> 
Ah! yes. Economy of means.  That is true.  Firstly because the manual 
element is removed and then also because the paradigm is of replication 
through model building. If you leave detail out of the model it doesn't 
seem like a "suggestion" to the viewer, it just seems like a crude 
model.  The exceptions make for an interesting side discussion though*. 
    I think one place these concepts come into play is in texturing and 
expecially with texturing * resolution.  The pixel plays a role in 
whether the texture can suggested, or handled more explicitly.  Also I 
suppose, in how much detail is necessary in a model.


*Just to get it said, in mesh modelling there is a strong tendency to 
economy of means, further bolstered by the psuedo-pragmatic ideal of 
models animating well.  And notice that in mesh modelling the manual 
role is restored to a degree.

Post a reply to this message

Tweeks:
	
on the metal
	reflection raised significantly esp the lower or coincident
	value ( .1 .6  ->  .6 .9 )
	specular roughness tweeked up by ~ 50x ( now .12 )
	color changed to try and match the brass in the reference
	(rather than gold) ( rgb CHSL2RGB( <70,.12,.29> ) )

on the enamel
	desaturated the colors by 50% and tinted the white marks
	lowered specular 3x ( -> .2 ) but increased specular roughness 	 
400x 	( -> .4)
	increased reflection slightly ( .1 .3 -> .2 .4 )

changed the photo behind the camera and increased its ambient

desaturated the lights so they still vary, but across a smaller color 
range and are all much closer to white

included a shot of the reference

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'img.0132.jpg' (79 KB) Download 'ref2.jpg' (41 KB)

Preview of image 'img.0132.jpg'

Preview of image 'ref2.jpg'

Superb Jim! Great work there.

  
      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

My goodness! This is the very thing now!
Very much a Grail object (just been reading Robert Holdstock lately :-) )

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Almost perfect! ...and I say "almost" only because the upper border of 
the coup makes it look like it is too flat. In the reference photo I can 
see a little the edge highlight, suggesting some thickness. Anyhow, that 
was a great improvement on the metal texture: just don't touch it! Well, 
you can tweak the color pigment, but the finish and normals seem perfect 
like they are now.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:

> Ah! yes. Economy of means.



> That is true.  Firstly because the manual
> element is removed and then also because the paradigm is of replication
> through model building. If you leave detail out of the model it doesn't
> seem like a "suggestion" to the viewer, it just seems like a crude
> model.  The exceptions make for an interesting side discussion though*.
>     I think one place these concepts come into play is in texturing and
> expecially with texturing * resolution.  The pixel plays a role in
> whether the texture can suggested, or handled more explicitly.  Also I
> suppose, in how much detail is necessary in a model.


Yes and lighting. For a series of images I made a while ago. I used a high
ambient, no shadows and flat lighting to give an unrealistic or cartoon
effect.

>
> *Just to get it said, in mesh modelling there is a strong tendency to
> economy of means, further bolstered by the psuedo-pragmatic ideal of
> models animating well.  And notice that in mesh modelling the manual
> role is restored to a degree.

Yes as much as in CSG I would think. What is wrong with using as little as
you can get away with?



Those changes to your chalice are spot on, BTW. All you need now is some
wine and wafers :-)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:



It is a pragmatic ideal because "light" meshes can be rendered faster in 
games and in full movie animations also consume less resources.  Also 
less complexity allows for easier morphing at joints and in the faces.

It is psuedo-pragmatic when the ideal is extended beyond its usefulness.

It is not a problem really, but growing up I always felt stifled by the 
level of pragmatism which I experienced as "provincial."  So I am wary 
of runaway Calvinism. It's a personal thing.

Btw, in the late stages of my painting "career" when I had reached a 
fair level of facility with my shoe paintings, I typically used cheap, 
crude, loose-haired 1/2" -> 1-1/2" cutters.*  I only used a small 
artist's brush to put in a few details on the shoe such as the line of 
the sole, and maybe the laces and their eyelets.

*Actually, here they are!
http://tinyurl.com/ntlvc

I LOVED those brushes.  As a general rule I love humble things.  But not 
when it's used as a moral stricture.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> 
>    Superb Jim! Great work there.
> 
>  
Thanks Buddy.

Post a reply to this message

"Jaime Vives Piqueres" <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote in message 
news:44310b0f$1@news.povray.org...
> upper border of the cup makes it look like it is too flat. see a little 
> the edge highlight, suggesting some thickness.

I noticed that, too, wondering if it could be the lesser clarity of the 
photo but it definitely looks like the lines there are thicker on the real 
one.

It's really fantastic now, anyhow, Jim! Could only get more perfect from 
here on, if at all possible. Before reading I had thought the second picture 
was this thing placed into a more realistic setting.

Something I couldn't stop thinking about is reflection 'exponent' and 
whether or not that might be plausible to use for the metal if you hadn't 
already done so. Maybe it would help dull the metal some by reflecting less 
of the darkness around it. Not sure if you would want to go on tweaking on 
that texture, though, since it looks pretty amazing already. Which makes me 
ask, are your render times for this reasonable (hours not days)?

-- 
Bob H  www.3digitaleyes.com
http://3digitaleyes.com/imagery/

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> My goodness! This is the very thing now!
> Very much a Grail object (just been reading Robert Holdstock lately :-) )
> 
Thanks Thomas, I'll give Holdstock a look, I am not currently familiar. 
  Actually someone in my household took "Stonehenge" (Bernard Cornwell) 
out of the library and I read a bit yesterday, while letting others use 
the computer.  Historical fiction, but fun, and I guess it suits my mood 
somehow given I am picturing religious artifacts lately, lol.  Actually 
the whole humble-cup/ornate-relinquary concept is kinda weird when you 
think about it.

My attraction to the subject has something to do with verticality, 
ritual, vertical sequencing, decorative icon, bodily ritual, bodily 
gratification, spheres of perception.

I big influence on me, since forever, was a piece by Bruce Nauman titled
"From Hand to Mouth"  It was, as I recall, a wall sculpture which was a 
cast from a fragment of a human body showing only the hand, arm, portion 
of the neck and jaw up to the mouth, and the mouth.  Formally it 
serviced the conceptual task of the day of illustrating a verbal 
expression.  But I believe I remember that he talked about it in terms 
of hand to mouth gratifications such as smoking and drinking coffee.

Post a reply to this message