On 6-10-2012 19:41, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>
> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P

My budget does not permit me more than a few featureless screens :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>
>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>
> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO

... and with time for modelling ;-)

>
> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)

Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>>
>>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>>
>> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO
>
> .... and with time for modelling ;-)
>

And computer resources.
It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The 
Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to 
PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse 
and render.

>>
>> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)
>
> Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P
>

Well sometimes I've done that. My entry for the Mother Hive had a large 
head (no_image) behind the camera so I could get a reflection of a face.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 12:05, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 7:44 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 6-10-2012 21:53, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2012 6:41 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
>>>> Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of a mirror ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Shame on you for modelling less detail behind the camera :-P
>>>
>>> I don’t agree. It is all to do with the art of illusion. IMO
>>
>> .... and with time for modelling ;-)
>>
>
> And computer resources.
> It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The
> Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to
> PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse
> and render.

Fortunately, this is decreasing with faster machines. The present image 
takes 12 minutes to parse and render, using 6 threads.

What is really time consuming are the details one wants to include. The 
whole harbour architecture has yet to be modelled in detail, and 
textured, and that takes days if not weeks (the ships are good examples 
for that). Often with many invisible parts, but one never knows if a 
future scene will not need those as yet invisible parts.

>
>>>
>>> I would have put a camera crew in the background. ;-)
>>
>> Well, the crew is behind the camera... ;-P
>>
>
> Well sometimes I've done that. My entry for the Mother Hive had a large
> head (no_image) behind the camera so I could get a reflection of a face.

Oh yes, that can be a nice touch.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 12:16 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> And computer resources.
>> It is probably exacerbated by using a modeller. My entry for “The
>> Sphinx” takes 6 seconds to save in Bishop3D and 20 seconds to export to
>> PovRay. And the more detail you have the longer it takes Pov to parse
>> and render.
>
> Fortunately, this is decreasing with faster machines. The present image
> takes 12 minutes to parse and render, using 6 threads.
>

Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you 
want to do with it?


> What is really time consuming are the details one wants to include. The
> whole harbour architecture has yet to be modelled in detail, and
> textured, and that takes days if not weeks (the ships are good examples
> for that).

Yes too true.

> Often with many invisible parts, but one never knows if a
> future scene will not need those as yet invisible parts.

I generally make the full model, save it, then strip out the parts that 
can't be seen directly or in reflection. Just for performance.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 13:43, Stephen wrote:
> Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you
> want to do with it?

Yes and no in fact. I still try to do an as /stream-lined/ job as possible.


> I generally make the full model, save it, then strip out the parts that
> can't be seen directly or in reflection. Just for performance.

Indeed. I also trim down as much as possible.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 3:02 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-10-2012 13:43, Stephen wrote:
>> Yes but don't you find that the faster the machine you have the more you
>> want to do with it?
>
> Yes and no in fact. I still try to do an as /stream-lined/ job as possible.
>

I am beginning to learn that lesson.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-10-2012 16:30, Stephen wrote:
> I am beginning to learn that lesson.
>

There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex 
scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most 
cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2012 3:43 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-10-2012 16:30, Stephen wrote:
>> I am beginning to learn that lesson.
>>
>
> There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex
> scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most
> cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.
>

Well it must be because I use Bishop3D. That is where my bottleneck must 
be. I really hate the way it handles meshes but I love the way it can 
import Pov files.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Hi(gh)! (back on the scene after fixing some problems with my DSL adaptor)

> There always is a trade off but the possibility to do more complex
> scenes than 10 or 15 years ago is the great benefit overall. In most
> cases, I never have to think about machine limitations any more.

If one aims at entire consistent worlds (like I do) rather than single 
high-quality artistic scenes (which of course would mean leaving out any 
detail in the back of the camera which is not essential for the scene 
proper), the appropriate machine probably never will be built.

On the other hand, the more powerful computers develop, the more 
difficult and time-consuming making use of their full potential will be 
- even to the point that you wish to work with more sophisticated tools 
than pure POV SDL. Probably Blender?

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message