Just a quick update before I switch the computer off. Added a tongue and 
refined the pose to something much better IMHO. Also tweaked the spine a 
little. I'm thinking about letting the slightly darker snake also have 
it's tail move from right to left as another layer behind their current 
positions, but I've got to test that. To me, it feels like there's too 
little of the snake on top, but just about the right amount for the one 
underneath.

Oh, and I'll get to the replies to all your posts later.

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'snakes_wip2.jpg' (65 KB)

Preview of image 'snakes_wip2.jpg'

Tim Nikias wrote:
> Just a quick update before I switch the computer off. Added a tongue
> and refined the pose to something much better IMHO.

It's just my opinion of course, but I have to say that I liked the previous 
pose much better. The snakes followed each other more closely, making it 
look like they belong together and moved in unison, though still 
independently. I also don't think there were too much focus to the right - 
the image was well balanced in its asymmetrical way.

In the new pose, the snakes look much more separated, like they casually 
happened to move over each other by chance, but without there being any 
meaning or purpose behind. While the old pose looks like the result of the 
two snakes moving forward together while twisting around each other, the new 
one looks more like they moved randomly around completely independent of 
each other and happened to end up that way. That may be what you're aiming 
at, but knowing your previous images, I would guess not. Take my words with 
a grain of salt though - it's just the way I perceive the images right now.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> Tim Nikias wrote:
>> Just a quick update before I switch the computer off. Added a tongue
>> and refined the pose to something much better IMHO.
> 
> It's just my opinion of course, but I have to say that I liked the previous 
> pose much better. The snakes followed each other more closely, making it 
> look like they belong together and moved in unison, though still 
> independently. I also don't think there were too much focus to the right - 
> the image was well balanced in its asymmetrical way.

I've got the older version saved as well, of course, so I'll look where 
I end up.

> In the new pose, the snakes look much more separated, like they casually 
> happened to move over each other by chance, but without there being any 
> meaning or purpose behind. While the old pose looks like the result of the 
> two snakes moving forward together while twisting around each other, the new 
> one looks more like they moved randomly around completely independent of 
> each other and happened to end up that way. That may be what you're aiming 
> at, but knowing your previous images, I would guess not. Take my words with 
> a grain of salt though - it's just the way I perceive the images right now.

Sure, a grain of salt is the way I take just about all comments and 
suggestions, no worries. :-) But you're right, that's why I was thinking 
about adding another part of the on-top snake to follow the front part 
of the below-snake. I'm also thinking about an attempt to just keep the 
heads, but have the on-top snake curve along the current below-snake 
pose... I wasn't too satisfied with the first pose, like I said, I felt 
it too much of an asymmetry, the new one lacks a little of the closeness 
you mention. But it's a WIP, so things will/may/should still change. :-D

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I hope you post further versions. And there is nothing wrong (IMO) with an
> asymmetrical picture. I like the composition as it is.

Yeah, asymmetry isn't a bad thing in itself. I'll have to work on it a 
little more to find what I'm really comfortable with.

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Simon wrote:
>> I looked at the image first and said, hmmm, looks like a python and 
>> then read your post! =D

Woot, I nailed the python part! :-D

> Oh, forgot to ask, for your final image, do you expect to give POV-rats 
> to it too?  hehe

Not really, this is more a cozy-feel-weel image, not a "dangerous threat 
looming to some poor little critter" type of image. ;-)

> But I'm just wondering can it be animated (ie articulated)?  I've been 
> thinking on doing a snake movement algo in C/C++ and OpenGL (to just 
> quickly see the movement) the result could then be exported to a povray 
> anim...  unfortunately, I don't have time for any of these things 
> anymore...

So far, it's just a basic subdivision-mesh, modelled to look good when 
subdivided. I'm sure it can be articulated somehow, but not with the 
tools I have at hand.

> Keep up the good work!

Thanks, I'm trying to. :-)

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>  Grrr! http://www.reptilis.org/morelie%20viridis/image10.htm

Yeah, some research is always a good start, and that's what I did, of 
course. Hence my post in off-topic asking about tutorials for scales and 
displacement painting... ;-)

Thanks for the links though!

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> It's snakes!  On a plane!
>>
> 
> That came also to my mind when I saw the topic.
> 
> 
> ....and I haven't even seen the movie!

Me neither, just noticed the hype around it, and the name stuck.

Regards,
Tim


-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> wrote in 
message news:45c3b5ca@news.povray.org...
> Just a quick update before I switch the computer off. Added a 
> tongue and
> refined the pose to something much better IMHO. Also tweaked the 
> spine a
> little. I'm thinking about letting the slightly darker snake also 
> have
> it's tail move from right to left as another layer behind their 
> current
> positions, but I've got to test that. To me, it feels like 
> there's too
> little of the snake on top, but just about the right amount for 
> the one
> underneath.
>

The bottom snake is very linear. I would think it would react to 
the
top snake by arcing its neck back and up a little.

Snakes should be sinuous and hissssssy.

(The bottom snake straight stiffness makes me think
of Thulsa Doom's arrow)

pan

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias <JUS### [at] gmxnetWARE> wrote:
> Just a quick update before I switch the computer off. Added a tongue and
> refined the pose to something much better IMHO. Also tweaked the spine a
> little. I'm thinking about letting the slightly darker snake also have
> it's tail move from right to left as another layer behind their current
> positions, but I've got to test that. To me, it feels like there's too
> little of the snake on top, but just about the right amount for the one
> underneath.
>
> Oh, and I'll get to the replies to all your posts later.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
> aka "Tim Nikias"
> Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Wow, great modelling! I hope to see it with normals, displacement, textures,
and snaky slit pupils! I think your intended recipient is lucky indeed to
get such an effort. Look forward to seeing the final...

-Stefan S,

Post a reply to this message

Personally, I like this version better than the first one :-)
The top snake needs something more indeed, but be careful not to destroy the 
present effect. If you show too much of its tail in the background, that 
might clutter the image.
I like Pan's idea to lift the head of the bottom snake a tiny bit. Would 
make the image more thrilling with tension. Open its mouth a tiny bit 
also...?

You're on the right track!

Thomas

Post a reply to this message