I really like the style. Shape, color and lighting work beautifully 
together. :)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> (wish I had the math skills to do 1/10th of this....)  :-)
>

Despite the subject line, I learned most of the math in this group. I
remember specifically ABX's teaching me how to calculate the area of a
triangle.

> 
> .... which reminds me now that you have said somewhere that you
> hand-coded your complex scenes, haven't you?
> I take my hat off to you (as they say)

Yes, all hand-coded. Thanks for the "hat's off," but I believe doing
this particular scene with a mouse might have been more difficult.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:

> Nice pic 

Thank you.

> although I preferred the Only for Geeks pic, possibly because
> it looks more finished. Am I imagining things or does this pic bear
> more than a passing resemblance with the other one? Apart from having
> more vertices, that is.

Conceptually they do resemble each other. Geometrically, they are in no
way similar.

> I'm also curious on how you can state that it doesn't intersect. I'm
> not doubting it, just wondering.

I built it; I would know if it intersected. I've been working similarly
- though less elaborately - for years; All of the "what if's" and "how
about's" have long since been explored. Nothing intersects.

- Shay

Post a reply to this message

I feel that what makes this (and also 'only for geeks') image so appealing 
to the eye is the 'randomness' enclosed in a very strict crystal shape. I am 
not sure, a dodecaedron? And the randomness shows several elaborate 
symmetries and mirrored rotations. The more I look at it, the more I get the 
impression to look at a crystal lattice.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> And I should add that the image is simply amazing and instructive - in
>> the purist sense.
>
> Don't know if you're talking about the image in this post or the link
> image. I imagine you'd be diplomatic and say "both" or "either."
> Whatever the case, thank you for the compliment.
Well, for the first image I said "Amazing! Bathsheba Grossman-esque." and 
meant every word of it.
This is more complex, if less textural, and it simply amazes me that you can 
figure out such a convoluted non-intersecting path.
How many closed circuits are there? One? More? Are they knotted? I see at 
least some superficial symmetry which would suggest at least two. If so 
coloring them differently would be truly instructive - I get lost too 
easily!

DLM

Post a reply to this message

"dlm" <me### [at] addressinvalid> wrote:
> >> And I should add that the image is simply amazing and instructive - in
> >> the purist sense.
> >
> > Don't know if you're talking about the image in this post or the link
> > image. I imagine you'd be diplomatic and say "both" or "either."
> > Whatever the case, thank you for the compliment.
> Well, for the first image I said "Amazing! Bathsheba Grossman-esque." and
> meant every word of it.
> This is more complex, if less textural, and it simply amazes me that you can
> figure out such a convoluted non-intersecting path.
> How many closed circuits are there? One? More? Are they knotted? I see at
> least some superficial symmetry which would suggest at least two. If so
> coloring them differently would be truly instructive - I get lost too
> easily!
>
> DLM

I'd like to see a simple 360 degree looped spin of this.
Charles

Post a reply to this message

dlm wrote:

> How many closed circuits are there? One? More? Are they knotted? I
> see at least some superficial symmetry which would suggest at least
> two. If so coloring them differently would be truly instructive 

Too instructive!! I had a street-magician friend named "Magic Mike."
Magic Mike, when asked to repeat a trick, would always reply that "Once
is entertainment. Twice is education." There's no once ... twice in a
still picture, but the heart of his rule survives: over-exposition
destroys the magic.

And the magic is there for more than just bragging rights. Back in
February 2004, I posted the first in a "series" of pictures with the
intent of presenting my colors and lines with such extreme flourishes
that a viewer would be unable to dismiss my abstract images as
"something a child could do."

That 2004 picture was "magical" to me, and I thought I had correctly
identified the source of that magic as these flourishes. Now, I'm not so
sure. Slowly, through subsequent and even one previous work, I
identified the magic of iteration. So this idea from 2004 has split into
two branches: the flourish branch, which has become nearly all flourish,
and the iteration branch which has become so unflourished that it is no
longer appropriate for this group.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> I really like the style. Shape, color and lighting work beautifully 
> together. :)
> 
> Rune

Thank you, Rune. Colors are reverse engineered by taking test-render
colors and comparing them with the colors from my scene file. This tells
me how the colors change in the given setup and where to start to end up
where I want to be.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> I feel that what makes this (and also 'only for geeks') image so appealing 
> to the eye is the 'randomness' enclosed in a very strict crystal shape. I am 
> not sure, a dodecaedron? And the randomness shows several elaborate 
> symmetries and mirrored rotations. The more I look at it, the more I get the 
> impression to look at a crystal lattice.
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 

Thank you. I agree the constraints under which the form was created are
what make the image a success. Monochromatic, hard-line "flutterings"
are a popular (passe) CG theme. A viewer may not immediately and
consciously identify the strict Formalism of this "fluttering," but he
will, I believe, be affected by it.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> Shay

  More to the point, I like the way you've done the soft shadows.


      ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message