 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] Thank You> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07-Sep-08 19:39, Ger wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> 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
OK what about a 'concerted effort'?
>>> 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 :)
What I meant is that defining a scene and the generation of output are
two different things. Shay did define his scene in POV-SDL and was able
to export his scene as a 2D jpg. If we want to create something physical
we need a 'camera' that can output stereo lithography files (common
extension of those files is STL). In comparison, Blender can output
those, but that does not have a scene description language. Hence, I
would like an STL camera in POV4 (or at least the possibility of
including one).
Does that make sense?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>>> 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
>
> OK what about a 'concerted effort'?
>
Sounds better
>>>> if I had the actual shape.
>>> Ah, yes, I knew there would a problem.
>>
>> Life is never without problems :)
>>
>> I assume you're making sense to someone, but that someone is not me :)
>
> What I meant is that defining a scene and the generation of output are
> two different things. Shay did define his scene in POV-SDL and was able
> to export his scene as a 2D jpg. If we want to create something physical
> we need a 'camera' that can output stereo lithography files (common
> extension of those files is STL). In comparison, Blender can output
> those, but that does not have a scene description language. Hence, I
> would like an STL camera in POV4 (or at least the possibility of
> including one).
> Does that make sense?
Yes, very much so. Thank you.
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> Thibaut Jonckheere wrote:
> >
> > Wow, impressive and beautiful !
>
> Merci beaucoup !
>
> >
> > I would be curious to see the code :)
>
> I don't share code.
>
> It would take me weeks to clean it up, and I'd only be subjecting myself
> to more crap from guys like the POV tag member who told me in p.o-t that
> I shouldn't bother trying to code something complex because I don't know
> what a "stack" is.
Who told you that!? Think I have met the dork. There are some here with egos so
huge that their big fat heads get in the way every time. They of course should
be ignored and avoided; they have no capacity to work together.
>
> More importantly, I feel that sharing to much of the "how" robs the
> magic from the "what."
>
> -Shay
A magical game called ping pong is the one I love the most. Its a game where you
boldly ignore the idiots and post your code. Then someone, who does work well
with others, makes sugestions, everbody learns, everybody wins. The dorks can
only win if you allow it.
Just my thoughts, I am NOT suggesting you should post your code. ONLY you can
decide that. Troublemakers deserve my responses. This one you mention was lucky
I wasn't there.
So relating to your issue with idiots here,
aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Spectacular.
>
> I especially like this because I honestly can see no way of doing it myself!
> Obviously we're all here because we know (at least a bit) about using POV-Ray
> to generate interesting imagery, but it does take some of the magic away when
> you look at someone's image and can see exactly how they've made it, even if it
> is stunning.
>
> Bill
But a mystery to be explored. And another possible reference point, jumping-off
point to soaring. Cant fly without a flight plan that includes a launch point
(point of reference) path and landing. The remaining metaphores I leave to you.
In the depth of mystery there is sublime dignity and elegance of character mixed
with authority and freedom. That *is* the "magic".
So keep those things and none of the "magic" would be lost by revealing a
mystery.
aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stunning work.
I keep coming back to your pieces. I find that I'm confounded by them,
trying to figure out how they look inside. Not inside the code, but the
centers of the spheroids. Give me a hint, please, are they solid all the
way through or is there an inverse of the surface on the inside?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> That worth should be manifest in the result alone, should it not?
>
> It should not have to be. If that were the case, why have collage? or
> sand-painting? or whittling? or glass blowing? or print-making? or the
> butterfly stroke?
>
> What is required to fully appreciate these things is a knowledge of
> their difficulty. Any idiot can tell that drawing a picture with sand is
> more difficult than taking a picture with a camera, but many wouldn't
> appreciate the difficulty of, for instance, lacquer painting.
>
I don't know that the idiot would be correct.
Sure, taking a vacation snapshot is easier then painting the same scene,
whether with oil or with sand. But, should you want to draw a picture,
you can light it how ever you like. Want each subject lit from a
different angle, you can just create the picture that way. Want a
physically impossible scene, there is nothing that prevents it. With a
camera you are bound by the real world, making that 'perfect' picture of
a sunset or a rainbow difficult to get. And trying to convince a ladybug
or a feral cat to take the pose you want . . .
I agree that the worth does not need to be manifest in the work.
However, it always will be. One person's junk is another's thing of
beauty, not always for some objective perfection, but through the
feelings that it brings out in the person experiencing it. Be that
person the artist knowing that they spent so much time creating it, or
knowing that they perfected their art so well that they could create the
piece in but minutes; or be it the viewer seeing the piece and being
reminded of something important, or just being transported by it.
Without those, the viewer will just see the 'value' that is held by the
components of the work; with those feelings, they will see so much more.
> And all of this is not to say that the worth *isn't* necessarily
> "manifest in the work alone." It may very well be, but, Christ, Jim,
> allow that the worth may require, at the very least, a second look to
> reveal itself. :) If showing the 'dirty linen' gets a second or third
> look, then I see no shame in at least giving the patron a peek.
>
That second look should be mandatory, anyways. However, I personally
find it more impressive when the artist can force me to take a second look.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
