 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice; I like it a lot.
I think closer and wider angle is better, more 'sci-fi', and gives the
feeling of a large object. And have you thought about the background? A
huge asteroid field and a big planet maybe? With black background and
starfield...
Good luck
H
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:web.42a57429e57fa8b4731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> An update on my Escher print interpretation.
>
> I was clearly lying in the previous post, I wasn't happy with the building
> geometry at all! It's a bit better now. I've made the whole thing bigger,
> put loads of windows and doorframes and detail guff like that, added
> flagpoles, textured the floor a bit better (not that you can tell at this
> resolution) and just generally tidied up. I expect my careful wall
> texturing is completely invisible at this zoom factor - if anyone can make
> it out I'd be interested in your comments. It's a kind of patchy, speckled
> surface such as might be seen on concrete from a distance.
>
> I'm almost happy with the boulder.
>
> Still to do: some people for the verandahs, trees and bushes for the
> boulder, maybe some rock strata for the boulder? Not sure if that would
> work. Must investigate. I also think I'm a too bit close and wide-angle -
> there's too much perspective on the nearside vertices. I need to move the
> camera back a little.
Bill,
The rock looks sedimentary with its parallel striations. Sandstone rather
than quartz or granite.
You can just about see the grains of sand in the composite.
This leaves an issue of scale - it looks no bigger than a rock or a
boulder - so the structures look doll's house scale at biggest. Perhaps they
have tiny ant-sized inhabitants? However if the habitations are human scale,
the coarse structure needs to become the detail. e.g.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dasg0007/picture%20gallery/northshore/ns10.htm
btw nice symmetry wrt two elements
DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Martin Magnusson wrote:
> Of course it's your image, and only you know where you want to go with
> it, but I'm not sure if vegetation would improve it, at least not too
> much.
I would second that.
Bonsai
--
<--------------------------->
___ __ __ _ ___ ___ _
| _ ) \ \( ) _) _ )( )
| _ \() |\ \ |\ \/ _ \| |
|___/__/_)\__)___)/ \_)_)
www.b0n541.net
<--------------------------->
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> The texture on the
> terraces and walkways is beautiful, especially how it gets grungy toward
> the edges but its tonal similarity to the boulder bothers me a bit. Not
> sure if I like that or not. My tendency is to think you would get more
> out of the image if the walkways stood out more as a pattern against the
> shape of the boulder.
The 'grunginess' towards the edges is not deliberate - I think it's a
radiosity artefact. But as you say, it looks good! I think a different
colour for the flooring is definitely a good idea. It's on my list...
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"JYR" <jyr### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> wrote:
> > but it didn't help keep me from seeing this scene as two individual
> > parts glued together.
>
> I, for one, suggest that this is exactly what this picture is about. A
> double planetoid, two constructs of the same overall shape and size sharing
> the same location in space, with implied competition, but not necessarily
> interaction.
>
> But, this is only my interpretation of this work ;)
That's very much what I get from the original work, and what I'm trying to
preserve here. The two tetrahedral worlds are separate and isolated,
despite occupying the same space.
To address your other comments: I agree, I too prefer the single archway for
the bridge. I changed it because I didn't want the boulder to appear
smaller than the buildings - I think the two shapes should be equal in
size. I may well change it back...
A lot of people think vegetation is a bad idea! I'm still keen to add some,
but of the sparse, desert type. The trees will be windblown skeletons (if I
get it right!), the bushes pale and scrubby. The hostility of the boulder
will thus be maintained. People on the buildings and vegetation on the
boulder will also help to establish the vertical (i.e., direction of
gravity) over both surfaces, which I think is quite important as a visual
hook.
The join where the two shapes intersect is indeed a problem. I may do some
creative interlocking, as in the original, or just have more vegetation
close to the wall as Bob suggested. This would make sense, too, I guess, if
the inhabitants of the buildings were in the habit of throwing waste out of
their windows!
Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement :)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"helge_h" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Nice; I like it a lot.
Cheers!
> I think closer and wider angle is better, more 'sci-fi', and gives the
> feeling of a large object. And have you thought about the background? A
> huge asteroid field and a big planet maybe? With black background and
> starfield...
The background will be the last thing I do, I suspect. I'd quite like to
keep it sky blue, so that the shadowed areas look properly lit (adds
realism). I like the idea that it's floating, lost, in some infinite sky...
But there has to be something behind it. I was thinking of hazy planets in
the distance. A non-planetary atmospheric volume like Larry Niven's 'smoke
ring' (in his novel 'the Integral Trees') or Iain Banks' 'airspheres' (in
'Look to Windward').
But, as with the vegetation, I shall have to experiment.
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"DLM" <mae### [at] combumbiumdedu> wrote:
> This leaves an issue of scale - it looks no bigger than a rock or a
> boulder - so the structures look doll's house scale at biggest. Perhaps they
> have tiny ant-sized inhabitants? However if the habitations are human scale,
> the coarse structure needs to become the detail. e.g.
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~dasg0007/picture%20gallery/northshore/ns10.htm
Yes, I agree. I need to play with the textures further. I think it's quite
important that the scale of the object be obvious and realistic. I'm not
sure I can manage quite the realism of that example, though! ;)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill,
I like this very much. Very Escher-like! Most has already been said, so I
shall not repeat here. Not too much vegetation though, and be careful that
the background does not become too distracting.
Keep up the excellent work!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
Not much of an Escher fan, so had never seen this one. Looked it up, and
it is pretty cool. Your's needs the holes in the rock for the two
planetoids to interlock.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
> The 'grunginess' towards the edges is not deliberate - I think it's a
> radiosity artefact.
Ahh. Which would explain its presence on the boulder too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
