"SafePit" <ste### [at] reids4funcom> wrote:

> I think it was the colors that clinched it for me.  I actually like the "all
> glass" look, very modern and would match your fifties theme well.

Looking at both images now, I kind of agree. And it just might be those dark
window 'stripes' in the original post that push the building's design into the
'bowling pin' category. ;-) Something I should have been more critical of.
>
> P.S. I enjoyed seeing the progression of your work. I'm always fascinated by the
> thought process people take to get to the final result.

Me too. (I should probably post more WIPS, as others do.) Trouble is, my scenes
take me too long to write (because I like to experiment with the code)--the
WIP-posting process could extend over months! Which is OK, I guess. Kind of
embarrassing, though, when others here whip scenes together in no time flat.
BUT, wips are meant to be critiqued by others--which is always a good idea, and
can keep a scene's design from progressing down a 'wrong path.' Or at least
bring it to an author's attention.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Dave Blandston" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> The headquarters building reminds me not of a bowling pin, but of Rosie, the
> Jetson's robot maid. This is a very cool scene!!!
>
I didn't think of that! Ah, the good ol' Jetsons.  Now *there's* some futuristic
architecture!

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4bd53d498f076cd8ae92d9930@news.povray.org...
> "SafePit" <ste### [at] reids4funcom> wrote:
>> P.S. I enjoyed seeing the progression of your work. I'm always fascinated 
>> by the
>> thought process people take to get to the final result.
>
> Me too. (I should probably post more WIPS, as others do.) Trouble is, my 
> scenes
> take me too long to write (because I like to experiment with the 
> code)--the
> WIP-posting process could extend over months! Which is OK, I guess. Kind 
> of
> embarrassing, though, when others here whip scenes together in no time 
> flat.
> BUT, wips are meant to be critiqued by others--which is always a good 
> idea, and
> can keep a scene's design from progressing down a 'wrong path.' Or at 
> least
> bring it to an author's attention.

I agree. I used to compose scenes much faster in the past, but nowadays, 
they take months to build (and render). However, I often take the *secrecy* 
path because the image is intended for the TC-RTC challenge, and I do not 
want to show my hand... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4bd49aa88f076cd8ae92d9930@news.povray.org...
> There's an aspect to the entire scene that may be giving it an overall odd 
> look:
> The camera has a very wide-angle view (which normally distorts 
> everything.) I
> tried to correct for this in the individual objects--rotating them to be
> more-or-less vertical 'visually.'  But I didn't do it to *all* the objects 
> (the
> trees are still slanted, for example.) It was an experiment that didn't 
> quite
> work out as planned.
>

There is a piece of *ancient* code that might help you with this, written by 
Doctor John. I copy it here 'as is':

// Persistence of Vision SDL include file
// Description: A macro to simulate lens movements in architectural scenes
//  Helps prevent the "falling verticals syndrome"
// Author: John Guthkelch (Doctor John) <doc### [at] linuxmailorg>
// Version 2.0 Released September 2005
// Changes: 1. Improved warning so that camera automatically reverts to 
default
//     type if insane values are given for CamPos and/or CamLook
//     2. Corrected silly mathematical error in vertical scaling.This
//     is now correct so switch has been taken out.

/***********************************************************************
Don't forget to switch off Vista Buffers by using -uv on the command line
or Vista_Buffer=0 in your .ini file before attempting to render your image
***********************************************************************/

#macro FieldCam (CP, CL)
 #local CD=CL-CP;
 #if (CD.x!=0 | CD.z!=0) // Note: That's a Boolean OR not an uppercase i
    // or a lowercase L!
  #local HypoXZ=sqrt(pow(CD.x, 2)+pow(CD.z, 2));
  #local VCorr=pow(vlength(CD), 2)/pow(HypoXZ, 2);
  #local CosThetaX=CD.x/HypoXZ;
  #local CosThetaZ=CD.z/HypoXZ;
  #if (CD.x=0)
   #local ShearX=0;
  #else
   #local ShearX=(CD.y/CD.x)*pow(CosThetaX, 2);
  #end
  #if (CD.z=0)
   #local ShearZ=0;
  #else
   #local ShearZ=(CD.y/CD.z)*pow(CosThetaZ, 2);
  #end
  #declare NoFall=transform {
   matrix <1, 0, 0, ShearX, VCorr, ShearZ, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0>
  }
 #else
  #warning "Viewing vector is perpendicular to XZ-plane.\n"
  #warning "Camera changed to default type.\n"
  #declare NoFall=transform {
   matrix <1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0>
  }
 #end
#end

/*********************************USAGE**************************************

#declare CamPos=<Xc, Yc, Zc>;   //Just replace <Xc,Yc,Zc> with location 
vector
#declare CamLook=<Xl, Yl, Zl>;  // -"-   -"-   <Xl,Yl,Zl> with look_at 
vector

camera {
 FieldCam (CamPos, CamLook)
 perspective
 location CamPos
 [angle Whatever] // Not essential but can be used
 [right If_you_want] // Also not essential but can be used
 transform {NoFall}
 look_at CamLook
}
****************************************************************************/


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> ...However, I often take the *secrecy*
> path because the image is intended for the TC-RTC challenge, and I do not
> want to show my hand... :-)

YES, I know that feeling! (I admit that my B-29 bomber animation was a similarly
'secretive' scene.) WIPS can sometimes 'lessen the impact' of the final work.
But I *do* like seeing them from others, and I shouldn't be so secretive myself.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

> There is a piece of *ancient* code that might help you with this, written by
> Doctor John. I copy it here 'as is':
>

So someone actually came up with code to do this?! Thanks, Thomas; I need to
examine this in detail, to see how it works.

Ken

Post a reply to this message

Oh that is niiiiice :)

Do I have an office? I wonder what it looks like inside...

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message 
news:web.4bd33d559bbfa54fae92d9930@news.povray.org...
>A well-kept secret! Somewhere in Dubai...
>
> Just having some fun with isosurfaces (and textures and media and lighting
> and...)
>
> I've been re-working some images from the past year that I never posted. 
> This
> one isn't perfect; it still has lots of uncorrected elements. But rather 
> than
> work endlessly on it, I decided to post it as-is. Suggestions are welcome,
> though; I *might* spend some more time on it. Hard to let go of!
>
> Ken
>

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Oh that is niiiiice :)
>
> Do I have an office? I wonder what it looks like inside...

Sorry, office space is at a premium at the moment (*I* can't even get
one)--filled with thousands of stressed-out workers feverishly putting the
finishing touches on POV-Ray v3.7  ;-P  Note the lighted windows--they're
working overtime!! Bah, who needs a crummy old office anyway--I prefer a more
leisurely lifestyle...

Ken

Post a reply to this message