 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> schreef in bericht
news:web.4657e945d8d381749dafebf60@news.povray.org...
> "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> I think that what is missing, are a pair of small figures running in the
>> foreground. Preferably one male, one female of course, again in the mood
>> of
>> the 50's pulp.
>
> You're definitely better at that than I am! :-) I wouldn't know where to
> put 'em, or what kind of pose they should have. Suggestions?
Well... In the mood of the 50's, it would probably be a square jawed male in
torn shirt, riding trousers and boots, running away, tugging a hysterical
girl in a torn dress, somewhere in the nearest foreground :-)
However, that would not do justice to Wells' book. Better would be two men
in final 19th century dress, the narrator and the vicar come immediately to
mind, looking on or fleeing from the scene. Not easy to do but oh! what high
drama! :-)
>
> At one point, I actually thought of changing the entire "feeling" of the
> scene--by putting a small figure of a man in a dinner jacket, with a pipe,
> sitting in his evening chair, reading the novel! In his study, but with
> the
> walls of the study fading out--so that the larger scene is entirely in his
> imagination. That would have been interesting (to say the least!)
>
Yes, that would be a very interesting development!!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 00:47:31 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Would love to see
>how it holds up at higher resolutions.
Me too
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:15:56 +0200, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet>
wrote:
>>
>> At one point, I actually thought of changing the entire "feeling" of the
>> scene--by putting a small figure of a man in a dinner jacket, with a pipe,
>> sitting in his evening chair, reading the novel! In his study, but with
>> the
>> walls of the study fading out--so that the larger scene is entirely in his
>> imagination. That would have been interesting (to say the least!)
>>
>Yes, that would be a very interesting development!!
I'd say that was more the 1960's but a good idea and interesting to do, I think.
For interesting read hard.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> You're definitely better at that than I am! :-) I wouldn't know where to
> put 'em, or what kind of pose they should have. Suggestions?
I have a few actually.
Book Art
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n3/n17423.jpg
The two I chose to post are some pictures I took of the Broadcast CD I have.
That may give you some ideas.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '05-27-07_0317.jpg' (37 KB)
Preview of image '05-27-07_0317.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Allen" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.46594043d8d381743c67359c0@news.povray.org...
>
> I have a few actually.
>
> Book Art
> http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n3/n17423.jpg
>
> The two I chose to post are some pictures I took of the Broadcast CD I
> have.
> That may give you some ideas.
>
LOL
I was not far from this with my description!!! :-)
...and I was just inventing!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>
> LOL
> I was not far from this with my description!!! :-)
> ...and I was just inventing!
>
> Thomas
Nope, not too far off at all. Good job. Here's the other one.
Notice in the left side... the man is holding his limp wife. That's another
idea for you to work with.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '05-27-07_0318.jpg' (42 KB)
Preview of image '05-27-07_0318.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"kike" <dry### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Is it only made with POV? fantastic!!!
Yep, all done in v 3.6.1c (plus Photoshop, to make a few image_maps.) I
*should* have taken the time to learn MORAY (or RHEINGOLD, or a similar
app) before starting this scene--it would have cut the long development
time in half, easily.
>I love fire at the background, it would be great if you explain how to get that
awesome effect!!!
There are eleven different "levels" to the distant fire, each a thin box
with a texture applied, and placed one behind the other. Basically 2-D
artwork, with see-through areas. The *basic* fire texture is a
red-to-yellow-to-red gradient x color_map (with transparency on either
side) with a high *frequency* to repeat it across the box, then with some
turbulence to break it up a bit. That texture is then combined--in a
gradient y pigment_map--with a completely transparent pigment, so that the
flames fade out at the tops of the boxes. Looks kind of crude in close-up,
but at a distance looks fine.
> I read that book long ago and made me think of drawing something in pov. But
> I thougth of tripods as "jointed" machines and something more dirty, like
> old machines, more like 19th century trains.
Some of the early-20th-century artistic depictions of Wells's war machines
do indeed look like old boiler-plate technology, with lots of do-dads and
rivets and such. A reflection of the Industrial Age technology at the time,
I suppose. Luckily for me, the comic book art has relatively simple shapes,
that are easier to model! I suppose one reason they were drawn that way was
because the artist was on a deadline! ;-)
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Amazing! The time and effort you've put into this shows through in its sheer
> quality. The colours are great, vibrant 50s pulp bursts from the image, and
> I agree, keep the magenta tripod 'eyes'!
> And that explosion! A superb piece of work.
> I honestly have nothing more to suggest... it looks as finished a piece of
> work as I've ever seen :-)
>
Thank you, Bill; VERY much appreciated.
> The reason the tripod in the
> distance on the left looks a little weirdly lit is because it's standing
> right over the fires, am I right? If so, keep it as it is, leisurely
> examination will reveal this to the attentive viewer.
>
Yes indeed! Happy to know you caught that. It was a fluke, really; I
didn't plan to do it. I happened to place that Machine in the distance
thinking it was still *in front of* the fire. But when I saw the result, I
said "Oh YEAH!" And it just happened that one of the tentacles was behind
the buildings. Serendipity!
BTW, in case it isn't screamingly obvious, the buildings are just an
image_map, a piece of Photoshop silhouette artwork with an alpha-channel.
But it's applied to a bumpy procedural height_field (the bumps face -z.)
The HF is positioned so that *some* of the bumpiness actually *pokes
through* a thin, textured "fire box" that bisects the middle of the HF--to
make it look like flames are not just behind the "buildings", but are
licking around and through them. I was kind of proud of that!
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lukas Winter <web### [at] removeitgeloeschtnet> wrote:
> Am Thu, 24 May 2007 21:13:52 -0400 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> I think its the abrupt border between the burning buildings and the
> ground. Perhaps some small rocks in the foreground or some fragments from
> the explosion flying towards the camera would also help.
>
Good suggestion. You're right, that border does draw unwanted attention.
I'll add some obscuring details there.
At one point, I did have fragments flying more towards the camera--but they
ended up looking odd, like flaws, or like dirt on the camera lens, drawing
far too much attention to themselves. (They showed up in a very
high-contrast way, compared to the bright explosion.) But I'll try adding
*something* back in there. Perhaps a separate debris field with it's own
toned-down or partially transparent texture.
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
>
> realistic. It looks like hydrocarbons flaring off. The burning town is so
>
Thanks!! (And I like that description--'flaring hydrocarbons'. Great!)
The "halo" above the rising gasoline fire in the center is one of the few
things in the scene that's not 3-D. I didn't want to use media to get that
effect, so I rendered the 3-D gas fire just by itself, against blue (like a
bluescreen), then took that into Photoshop, made high-contrast B&W artwork
of it, blurred that, turned it into an alpha-channel, then re-applied it in
POV-Ray to a thin box, as an image_map. The box is placed behind
the real gas fire in the scene, and lit only with colored ambient light.
Kind of a cheat, eh? :-)
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
