Ger wrote:

> I have been going back and forth between your images and I must
> say that I'm appreciating them more and more.

Thank you.

> Not taking away any from my understanding how much time this can
> take.

I want to clarify a bit about the time. I could look at this completed 
picture and model it in a reasonable amount of time. The unreasonable 
time use comes from constructing modeling algorithms which allow me to 
the freedom to edit the shapes. Then there's the editing. At one point, 
these planar plates were in some areas connected by curved plates. A 
nice idea, but the curved plates hid too much of the complexity underneath.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:20:04 -0500, Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:

>Life isn't all about beauty. I'd look across the street to see a 
>beautiful girl, but I'd walk across the street to see Pan Qing Fu's 
>(anything but beautiful) knuckles.


That's not what I was trying to illustrate. But Pan Qing Fu's knuckles would
pale into insignificance by seeing his beautiful movements. 
Now that is artifice IMO.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 17:01, Shay wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> Or, just something where a bit of deformation won't hurt.

As long as it does not prevent your pieces from matching up.

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
> St. wrote:
>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
> 
> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
> 
>> How many components are in this image?
> 
> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out 
> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want 
> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate 
> designs.
> 
> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded 
> corner?
> 
I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one 
piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all 
the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast 
using liquid clay.

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 14:46, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:15:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> There is another thing to note here. That is that true art shapes the 
>> artist as well as the other way around
> 
> I could not agree with you more. 
> I think that the word that you are looking for is internalise or even "grok"
> from Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.
> 

Indeed that would be a good word. I have come across the word, but only 
used as a stronger version of understand. I was not aware of the 
original meaning. Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:48c3e9c2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>
> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!

     Hehe, :) not as reckless as you may think, and thinking about it, you 
wouldn't need propane, (that's me, I'm propane mad!), you could just use a 
butane canister, or camping stove to melt the pewter. Find yourself an old 
soup ladle from some junk shop somewhere to melt and pour your pewter, and 
while you're there, ask the shopkeeper if he/she has any old pewter kitchen 
equipment, like teapots, coffee pots, or even old beer mugs. Should be much 
cheaper that way. (Although, I think it's fairly cheap to buy new anyway).

>
>> How many components are in this image?
>
> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out 
> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want to 
> try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate 
> designs.

   I envy you. You're about to set sail on a road of discovery that you will 
really enjoy. Oh, and I'm here to help if I can in the metal department. :)


>
> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded 
> corner?

    Sure. Pewter is great for that. All you would need is either a nylon or 
rawhide mallet (preferably nylon like on that site in the products section, 
because a rawhide mallet might leave a texture) to 'gently' tap it around a 
dome. If you've ever played with lead, then that's how flexible pewter is 
depending on its thickness of course. I say 'gently' because it is a soft 
metal, and will easily distort if hit hard, but if you want a section of a 
sphere, then that's the way to go. I'm not sure what you would dome it on, 
It would depend really on how big the end product would be. But, think 
glass, (large marbles, solid crystal balls of varying sizes which are *very* 
strong, and won't chip), think brass and steel, (engineering scrappers, 
rejects, i.e., spherical bearings and bushes). I use all of these except for 
crystal balls.

     Good luck Shay.

         ~Steve~



>
>  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
>> St. wrote:
>>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>> 
>> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
>> 
>>> How many components are in this image?
>> 
>> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out
>> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want
>> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate
>> designs.
>> 
>> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded
>> corner?
>> 
> I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one
> piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all
> the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
> Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast
> using liquid clay.

As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all pieces
are flat (as in a plane). If that is the case then it might even be doable
to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
if I had the actual shape.

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

On 07-Sep-08 18:21, Ger wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 07-Sep-08 16:45, Shay wrote:
>>> St. wrote:
>>>> I would make it out of pewter <snip> This is something you could
>>>> do yourself and you wouldn't need a kiln, just a propane tank, the
>>>> right torch and some Delft Clay:
>>> Sounds extremely reckless for the inexperienced. I'm in!
>>>
>>>> How many components are in this image?
>>> Many. That' why I think this one is best made from wood. I could cut out
>>> the components with the laser engraver in a couple of hours. I do want
>>> to try pewter, ceramic, and resin, however, with some more appropriate
>>> designs.
>>>
>>> Could I pour the plates out of pewter and then fold them over a rounded
>>> corner?
>>>
>> I think the idea would be that you design it, export in STL, have one
>> piece printed in 3D and then use the Delft Clay technique to create all
>> the pieces in pewter (or silver if you can afford that).
>> Or do what I did, make a gypsum mold around the piece and then cast
>> using liquid clay.
> 
> As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all pieces
> are flat (as in a plane). 

In this last image, I also think they are sort of flat but with rounded 
edges. Shay was also referring to an earlier work with not so flat pieces.

> If that is the case then it might even be doable
> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it

Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve 
metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).

> if I had the actual shape.

Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.

BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion 
POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing 
camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer 
to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case 
somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

>> 
>> As far as I can make out, which means that I'm most likely wrong, all
>> pieces are flat (as in a plane).
> 
> In this last image, I also think they are sort of flat but with rounded
> edges. Shay was also referring to an earlier work with not so flat pieces.
> 

Well, yes, some of Shay's images are virtually impossible to make in wood
unless you fully carve them and I'm not that good at woodwork :(
I think the edges are at an angle, as slanted, but that doesn't make a
difference in making the pieces in wood.

>> If that is the case then it might even be doable
>> to make it in wood. And as I like woodwork I might even try my hand at it
> 
> Sure, let's make a contest. You do the wood, I do the ceramics, Steve
> metal and Shay himself resin (and wood and ceramics).
> 

Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

>> if I had the actual shape.
> 
> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.

Life is never without problems :)

> 
> BTW in the discussion on POV4 I more than once said that in my opinion
> POV4 should focus on the scene description language with the raytracing
> camera as just one, although an important, output option. I would prefer
> to have STL or other true 3D output as alternative 'cameras'. In case
> somebody still didn't grok why, this thread may give a clue.
> 
 I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:39:21 -0500, Ger <No.### [at] ThankYou> wrote:

>
>Heck no, no contests. I hate the idea of art in a contest

Too true, that's why St made TC-RTC a "challenge". 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message