 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group, one
prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more education!
Oh well, I do what I can with what I have.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'angular.jpg' (100 KB)
Preview of image 'angular.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:37:24 -0500, Shay wrote:
> The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group, one
> prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more
> education!
Feh, they can go jump, for all I care. Your images are always
interesting to look at - this one reminds me vaguely of a wooden puzzle I
used to have.
Keep it up. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group, one
>> prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more
>> education!
>
> Feh, they can go jump, for all I care.
I was being facetious and misrepresenting that POVer's remarks. :)
> Your images are always
> interesting to look at - this one reminds me vaguely of a wooden
> puzzle I used to have.
Thank you.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
NOT a function.
NO intersections.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <shay@s.s> wrote in message news:46bcae9a$1@news.povray.org...
> NO intersections.
Good job you said that Shay, because I was just going to bet you that
there weren't any intersetions. Guess what? You would have lost. ;)
~Steve~
>
> -Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"interseCtions". Damn, I hate myself.
What I also meant to say is, great image!
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:29:04 -0500, Shay wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group,
>>> one prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more
>>> education!
>>
>> Feh, they can go jump, for all I care.
>
> I was being facetious and misrepresenting that POVer's remarks. :)
Ah, OK - I *thought* I might've missed something. ;-) In that case, my
comment can be taken in a similar vein. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Get more education.
BTW everytime I see a Stella, I think of you. This does seem Stellaesque.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Get more education.
Still not good enough, eh?
> BTW everytime I see a Stella, I think of you.
> This does seem Stellaesque.
Thank you![1]
He and I are both obsessed with 'Moby Dick.'
This and '...geeks only?' were both inspired in part by the Albatross
Footnote[2], but neither render is good enough for a serious
presentation. I can't go into why that is without derailing this thread,
but a better render of this image will hopefully exist someday. In this
sense, I have never completed a 3D work to my satisfaction. I've only
ever printed my "flat" pictures.
-Shay
[1] Exclamation point conditional on your saying this in reference to
the works he was doing in the 60s 70s and not the trash-pile sculptures
into which he has since regressed.
[2] I remember the first albatross I ever saw. It was during a prolonged
gale, in waters hard upon the Antarctic seas. From my forenoon watch
below, I ascended to the overclouded deck; and there, dashed upon the
main hatches, I saw a regal, feathery thing of unspotted whiteness, and
with a hooked, Roman bill sublime. At intervals, it arched forth its
vast archangel wings, as if to embrace some holy ark. Wondrous
flutterings and throbbings shook it. Though bodily unharmed, it uttered
cries, as some king's ghost in supernatural distress. Through its
inexpressible, strange eyes, methought I peeped to secrets which took
hold of God. As Abraham before the angels, I bowed myself; the white
thing was so white, its wings so wide, and in those for ever exiled
waters, I had lost the miserable warping memories of traditions and of
towns. Long I gazed at that prodigy of plumage. I cannot tell, can only
hint, the things that darted through me then. But at last I awoke; and
turning, asked a sailor what bird was this. A goney, he replied. Goney!
never had heard that name before; is it conceivable that this glorious
thing is utterly unknown to men ashore! never! But some time after, I
learned that goney was some seaman's name for albatross. So that by no
possibility could Coleridge's wild Rhyme have had aught to do with those
mystical impressions which were mine, when I saw that bird upon our
deck. For neither had I then read the Rhyme, nor knew the bird to be an
albatross. Yet, in saying this, I do but indirectly burnish a little
brighter the noble merit of the poem and the poet.
-Melville
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>
> Good job you said that Shay, because I was just going to bet you that
> there weren't any intersections. Guess what? You would have lost. ;)
I wouldn't have taken the bet, but I should have put that in my original
post, because someone might have. After hanging around here for SO many
years, it's easy to forget there are always a lot of people around who
aren't familiar with my fixations. I'm not exactly prolific.
> What I also meant to say is, great image!
Thank you.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Get more education.
>
> Still not good enough, eh?
>
Or that if you can do this with high school math, he is anxious to know
what you could achieve using some more advanced math. I know I would.
BTW, handcrafted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>
>>Get more education.
>
>
> Still not good enough, eh?
Hee hee, yeah, if you're going to stand there with your nose in the
doorway, I'm going to slam the door on it. I know you'd expect nothing
less of me and me of you.
>
>
>>BTW everytime I see a Stella, I think of you.
For any Stella this is true.
>>This does seem Stellaesque.
The later angular contortions are the obvious reference though I had
nothing really specific in mind. There are some pieces on show on the
roof gallery at at the MMA right now that share a feel with your work in
some general ways. Specifically the sense that we are being shown a
dimension or slice of some more complicated thing.
>
> He and I are both obsessed with 'Moby Dick.'
didn't know that. Melville is hard to top.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> [2] http://www.tiny.cc/pstdo
This is a dangerous site - it tried to install diskscrubber software. And
its full of spam and ads. Tinyurl.com does not intrude like that.
http://tinyurl.com/ynpfeo
And I should at that the image is simply amazing and instructive - in the
purist sense.
DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> > Or that if you can do this with high school math, he is anxious to
> > know what you could achieve using some more advanced math.
I know what he means. I'm just having a little fun. Jim knows from
previous conversations that I do not care for the type of
self-deprecation I am feigning.
> > I know I would. (like to see what you could do with more advanced
> > math)
Thank you, but I've not even approached the limits of my High School[1]
math. Looking at this and "...geeks only?"[2] might lead a person to
wonder exactly how complex a person could get with such a shape. The
answer is: VERY. Only aesthetics and RAM prevent these image from being
MUCH more complex.
> > BTW, handcrafted?
By the hard, scarred hands of a filthy manual laborer.
-Shay
[1] Plus that taught to me by ABX and Tor
[2] http://tinyurl.com/ynpfeo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm wrote:
>> [2] http://www.tiny.cc/
> This is a dangerous site - it tried to install diskscrubber software.
> And its full of spam and ads.
Thank you very much. I thought I was using tinyurl. I should be more
careful. I have canceled that post and reposted with the tinyurl you gave.
> And I should at 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.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <shay@s.s> schreef in bericht news:46bcc3e4$1@news.povray.org...
[....] I'm not exactly prolific.
Maybe, but they are always eyecatchers!
(wish I had the math skills to do 1/10th of this....) :-)
Excellent!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] inter nlDOTnet> schreef in bericht
news:46bd626d@news.povray.org...
>
> (wish I had the math skills to do 1/10th of this....) :-)
>
.... 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)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <shay@s.s> wrote:
> The last time I posted something geometric and mathy to this group, one
> prominent pover was SO unimpressed he rudely suggested I get more education!
>
> Oh well, I do what I can with what I have.
>
> -Shay
Nice pic 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.
I'm also curious on how you can state that it doesn't intersect. I'm not
doubting it, just wondering. If you used code that resembles the Why the
dark triangle? thread, one could argue that the code *could* be written as
a function.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
