Opinion time !

  I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
night sky.
  Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
in our solar system.

What do you think about this generaly ?

Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?

Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
at through the atmosphere of the earth ?

Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?

Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
live?

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I'm waiting for someone to create a project to develop macros for the
sun, moon, stars and just about everything else involving the solar
system as seen from earth.  Throw in day and night cycles too.

It would be kinda' cool if someone could create an outline for a macro
that calculates the positions of various stars in the sky in such a way
that it would be easy for others to add to it.  I figure the sky could
be divided up into zones and then someone could get that section of sky
and using star charts add all the visible stars up to about magnitude 6
or 7. I figure with a few dozen people working on it we could have them
all covered in a few months, though I really don't know how many stars
this would actually cover.  Anyone know?

Sound like fun?

If I had the time I would start it now.  Otherwise I'll get to it in
about a month if no one runs with the idea.

-Mike

Ken wrote:
> 
> Opinion time !
> 
>   I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
> star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
> lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
> are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
> where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
> can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
> when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
> there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
> are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
> night sky.
>   Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
> I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
> photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
> in our solar system.
> 
> What do you think about this generaly ?
> 
> Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?
> 
> Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
> space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
> at through the atmosphere of the earth ?
> 
> Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?
> 
> Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
> landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
> special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
> the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
> live?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Well we would see no nebula's from earth, none in the general vicinity. 
But I go out in the country and look up I can see the Milky Way accross
the sky.  A more dense area of stars.  And Lens flares, are they not a
product of atmospheres, so really lens flares in space are an artistic
toush.  But I could be wrong.  And the Hubble could not get a lens flare
because it would fry the optics.

Ken wrote:
> 
> Opinion time !
> 
>   I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
> star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
> lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
> are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
> where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
> can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
> when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
> there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
> are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
> night sky.
>   Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
> I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
> photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
> in our solar system.
> 
> What do you think about this generaly ?
> 
> Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?
> 
> Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
> space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
> at through the atmosphere of the earth ?
> 
> Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?
> 
> Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
> landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
> special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
> the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
> live?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

We can all see the Orion nebula from earth.  It's pretty bright.  I
think some others are visible too, they just look like stars is all. 
You can see the Andromeda galaxy under clear skies too, and it's
actually pretty big.  Looks like a faint fuzzy patch if you use averted
vision.

Lens flares are internal reflections of the camera lens.  That's why
they are shaped like the diaphram of the camera.  The colors are at
least partly attributable to the coatings used on lens elements (thin
film interference like POV's iridescence).

-Mike

portelli wrote:
> 
> Well we would see no nebula's from earth, none in the general vicinity.
> But I go out in the country and look up I can see the Milky Way accross
> the sky.  A more dense area of stars.  And Lens flares, are they not a
> product of atmospheres, so really lens flares in space are an artistic
> toush.  But I could be wrong.  And the Hubble could not get a lens flare
> because it would fry the optics.

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Opinion time !
> 
>   I have seen many a night sky renderd with Pov. Of these many
> star ladden skies there is often a tendency to add gas clouds,
> lens flares, and star bursts. I know that these added touches
> are fun to add in but how real are they really. Here in the US
> where I live in a large metropolitan area we are lucky if we
> can see some of the brighter planets let alone stars. But even
> when I get the chance to get out into the country and look up
> there a lot of stars up there but with the unaided eye there
> are no gas clouds, star bursts, or fancy lens flares visible in the
> night sky.
>   Is this trend for special effects a side effect of astro photography ?
> I know the hubble telescope has advanced nebular and galactic
> photography to a new level but it's just not the stuff you see localy
> in our solar system.
> 
> What do you think about this generaly ?
> 
> Do you as an artist go for the effect and damn the realism ?
> 
> Should these special effects be used only when viewing from
> space and go for more of a realistic impression when looked
> at through the atmosphere of the earth ?
> 
> Can you get away with excessive effects in a twin star system ?
> 
> Is it worth it to spend 3 weeks to model a perfect house with
> landscaping, streets, and street lights and then throw in the best
> special effect that galaxy.inc will give you when it's likely that
> the night sky is as boring to look at there as it is here where I
> live?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
;-)
The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
actually orange in stead of pale).
I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
know where it comes from  ;-)

Regards,

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Mike wrote:
> 
> I'm waiting for someone to create a project to develop macros for the
> sun, moon, stars and just about everything else involving the solar
> system as seen from earth.  Throw in day and night cycles too.
> 
> It would be kinda' cool if someone could create an outline for a macro
> that calculates the positions of various stars in the sky in such a way
> that it would be easy for others to add to it.  I figure the sky could
> be divided up into zones and then someone could get that section of sky
> and using star charts add all the visible stars up to about magnitude 6
> or 7. I figure with a few dozen people working on it we could have them
> all covered in a few months, though I really don't know how many stars
> this would actually cover.  Anyone know?
> 

I already have a load of #include files which correctly solve Kepler's
equation for eliptical orbits - we use them for solar system anumations

Scott Manley
spm### [at] stararmacuk

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:

> I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
> ;-)
> The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
> same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
> getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
> movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
> darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
> go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
> for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
> actually orange in stead of pale).
> I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
> look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
> do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
> know where it comes from  ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Remco

I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
the most part faithfull to reality.
  I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
  If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
is needed.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I agree with the fact that things have to be defined very precisely. It's true that a
lot of POV
features allow to make very 'fantastic' images. But I think these features were
originaly made
to improve the realistic touch.Showing POV capabilities is not only making beautiful
pictures
using lens-flare everywhere, surrealistic lights.
I am not a real-only POV user. But in this sort of project (I suppose), it should be
"The"
interesting part.

                    David GEMELLI

Ken a écrit:

> I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
> movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
> the most part faithfull to reality.
>   I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
> I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
> noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
> planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
> site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
> super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
> look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
> one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
>   If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
> is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
> is needed.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

My 2 eurocents:
 I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives it
the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.

As a kid, my favorite SF painter was UK cover artist Chris Foss, who made
all kinds of different terrestrial or space skies, most of them in unusual,
totally unrealistic colors.
If you don't have his 1980 book "XXIth Century Foss", just have a look this
page for inspiration :
http://www.stl-online.net/vanya/fossart/fossvirtual.html
BTW, anyone knows whether Foss is still active today ? He seems quite
forgotten today. I couldn't find any recent info (>1991) on him.

About city night skies, I live in a big city myself and rarely see the
stars, planets and such. However, I find that the general hazy glow of a
city is far from being dull and could be something pretty complex and
interesting to model.

Gilles Tran

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:19:00 -0600, Mike <Ama### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>It would be kinda' cool if someone could create an outline for a macro
>that calculates the positions of various stars in the sky in such a way
>that it would be easy for others to add to it.  I figure the sky could
>be divided up into zones and then someone could get that section of sky
>and using star charts add all the visible stars up to about magnitude 6
>or 7. I figure with a few dozen people working on it we could have them
>all covered in a few months, though I really don't know how many stars
>this would actually cover.  Anyone know?

I think there are probably databases of this sort of thing.  I guess I'd
start by checking some astronomy sites.  Once you have one, put it into 
a format that #read can understand, and the rest is just banging a few
bits together.

Post a reply to this message

AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
didn't because I didn't want to start a war!

Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
experience don't bother...

Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!

Mick Hazelgrove

Gilles Tran wrote in message <369DF610.A75EC6E4@inapg.inra.fr>...
>My 2 eurocents:
> I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
>IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
>head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
>of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
>many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives
it
>the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
>
>As a kid, my favorite SF painter was UK cover artist Chris Foss, who made
>all kinds of different terrestrial or space skies, most of them in unusual,
>totally unrealistic colors.
>If you don't have his 1980 book "XXIth Century Foss", just have a look this
>page for inspiration :
>http://www.stl-online.net/vanya/fossart/fossvirtual.html
>BTW, anyone knows whether Foss is still active today ? He seems quite
>forgotten today. I couldn't find any recent info (>1991) on him.
>
>About city night skies, I live in a big city myself and rarely see the
>stars, planets and such. However, I find that the general hazy glow of a
>city is far from being dull and could be something pretty complex and
>interesting to model.
>
>Gilles Tran
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>
> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> experience don't bother...
>
> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>
> Mick Hazelgrove

I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.

  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic looking
in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a definate
challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
This can be most satisfying.

  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history favors
the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
tha an image of a light bulb.

  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
in the same body of work.

Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
things it escapes me.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen

Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
we should aim for.

Mick

Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
>Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
>> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
>> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>>
>> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
>> experience don't bother...
>>
>> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>>
>> Mick Hazelgrove
>
>I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
>
>  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
looking
>in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
definate
>challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
>This can be most satisfying.
>
>  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
>stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
>artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
favors
>the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
>captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
>tha an image of a light bulb.
>
>  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
>pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
>with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
>importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
>I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
>to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
>in the same body of work.
>
>Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
>things it escapes me.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I'm no good in these discussions, but just to add my 2 bits...I figure
if I can stand to look at what I do than I did a good job.  That's my
primary criteria.  In judging others work I'm just as subjective, though
I prefer to praise than critique.

-Mike

Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> 
> Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
> or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen
> 
> Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
> which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
> we should aim for.

Post a reply to this message

Actually one interesting thing with povray is that both attitudes tend to merge,
since doing really good pictures requires quite a high level of technical
skills. Povray is not exactly a "painting by numbers" tool and I guess that's
what most of us love in it.
The point I'd like to make is that these skills can be also put to work, and
quite efficiently, on things that are not exactly what is expected from a 3D
software, i.e. to do the usual realist things. To take an example from another
3D software, the most interesting pics I ever saw made with Poser were using its
faults, like its annoying ability to distort characters in every way possible,
rather than the standard Poser "official" features.
OK, let's say that there's a big large realm out there and a quite unchartered
one... I'm in no way saying that the search for realism is wrong (it's actually
a real big enjoyable fun), only that there are other paths, perhaps undervalued
due to the traditional nature of 3D imagery.

Gilles



Mick Hazelgrove wrote:

> Given the state of the art world a third veiw might be  anything goes
> or how about a minimalist point of veiw... a blank white screen
>
> Both realist and expressionist points of view are enjoined by the way in
> which they can both enlighten and enrich our experience... maybe that's what
> we should aim for.
>
> Mick
>
> Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
> >Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> >
> >> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
> >> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
> >>
> >> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
> >> experience don't bother...
> >>
> >> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
> >>
> >> Mick Hazelgrove
> >
> >I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
> >
> >  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
> looking
> >in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
> definate
> >challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
> >This can be most satisfying.
> >
> >  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
> >stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
> >artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
> favors
> >the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
> >captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
> >tha an image of a light bulb.
> >
> >  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
> >pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
> >with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
> >importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
> >I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
> >to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
> >in the same body of work.
> >
> >Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
> >things it escapes me.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Tyler
> >
> >tyl### [at] pacbellnet
> >
> >

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> While this may look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP.

I think this issue is really to be discussed on the IMP mailing lists.
Cheers,
Al.

--
ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
Pour me répondre, veuillez enlever le Z de mon adresse.
To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> My 2 eurocents:
>  I don't care about realism as long as the pic makes me feel something.
> IMHO, trying to mimic reality is a dead end because reality will always a
> head start... Top 3D "hyperrealistic" renderings may be impressive in terms
> of computer technology (and useful in all sorts of business situations) but
> many are pathetic attempts artistically speaking, unless the artist gives it
> the personal twist that makes it unique. Interpretation is the keyword.
> 
[snip]

Realism isn't exactly my thing either, never was. However, in painting for
instance the strive for realism has resulted in very interesting images. For one
because painters who had the ability to come close to reality soon found that it
was necessary to add something to it. On the other hand there were painters who
used this approach just to show how bland (?) reality really was. Or, how
exciting. This goes for painting, but alos for film. My point is, that while
trying to make your image as realistic as possible, you always, knowing or not
knowing, add something, call it a vision or a point of view. Your computer may
be a machine, you, unfortunately (?) are not.
("I'm both mentally and physically superior to the human being." - Data -
working on a painting)
The choice of subject, scenery, objects, point of view, approach etc. makes an
image interesting or not. For example the over-obvious
glass-ball-on-checkered-floor posted on this server yesterday was great, because
it added something really new (some technical thing I don't know the beginning
of...) in an attempt at (physical?) realism.
Still, I stick to my cartoonish imagery and make a nightsky with stars, brown
clouds, or silhouette bikes if I like. No lenseflares though, I think.

That makes 4 eurocents.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Alain CULOS wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
> > While this may look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP.
>
> I think this issue is really to be discussed on the IMP mailing lists.
> Cheers,
> Al.
>
> --
> ANTI SPAM / ANTI ARROSAGE COMMERCIAL :
> Pour me répondre, veuillez enlever le Z de mon adresse.
> To answer me, please take out the Z from my address.

 It's been a long tiome since I have seen any public discussions of the
IMP and figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it once in while in case
new users or people that have been out of touch for a while have
not heard of it. It's not like it's a secret society or anything.
Might be a good discussion for the IMP group too since that issue
will need to be addressed eventualy.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

I don't think I'll get involved too much in this thread... but I like to go
for a mix of both, depending on whether I want realism or surrealism...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> I don't think I'll get involved too much in this thread... but I like to go
> for a mix of both, depending on whether I want realism or surrealism...
>
> --
> Lance.

Well I'm glad you took the time to tell us you are not going to say anything.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

It was just a small note, and now I shut u...........

Post a reply to this message

Those two schools of thought (and others as well) have permeated the Arts
for centuries.  As the years progress they each take their turns coming into
ascendancy and them going into eclipse (sorry, I just had to use the puns
...)  No one is better than the other.  They are all equally appreciable.

POv is, at its soul, yet another means of artistic expression.  Another
tool, like the brush, canvas, paints, etc. that are used to deliver the
artists take of their subject, impression of the subject, and the world
influencing the subject.  So, use it as you deem fit and as satisfies your
needs to express your portrayals of the universe and its subjects.

--
Jim

Check out my web site http://www.kressworks.com/
It'll blow your mind (politically), stimulate your senses (artistically)
and provide scientific insights beyond compare!

Be sure to read the Warp maintained POV VFAQ:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~warp/povVFAQ.html




Ken wrote in message <369E295B.418345AD@pacbell.net>...
>Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
>
>> AT Last someone has said what I have debating saying for a long time but
>> didn't because I didn't want to start a war!
>>
>> Well said Giles - If a picture does not contribute something to human
>> experience don't bother...
>>
>> Guess I better start deleting some of the pictures from my website!!!
>>
>> Mick Hazelgrove
>
>I think there are two very satisfying schools of thought here.
>
>  The first is the ultimate challenge of creating something so realistic
looking
>in appearance that you can not distinguish it from reality. This is a
definate
>challenge of ones skills and the software they choose to accomplish this.
>This can be most satisfying.
>
>  The second would of course be your view point where you take the
>stance that to produce and image it should touch the viewer and be an
>artistic expression of the it's creator. There is no doubt that history
favors
>the impressionist artist. One who favors the lighting, evokes meaning,
>captures an intimate view, or what ever is apt to gain more response
>tha an image of a light bulb.
>
>  I wont argue either view and respect them both. I personaly have used
>pov for both styles and must admit for me anyway that saying something
>with your work, moving the people that view it emotionaly, is of great
>importance to me. Then again I like the feed back of my peers when
>I have done something with the program technicaly that challenges them
>to figure out how I did it. There is room for both schools of thought even
>in the same body of work.
>
>Maybe there is a third school of thought but with my narrow view of
>things it escapes me.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>

Post a reply to this message

I saw this massive outpouring here and couldn't refrain from entering
yet another reply. In fact, this thread could become one of the several
fastest growing, largest and off-topic ones. So get your stats ready,
Lance.
I've become a stranger to the IMP, I feel, because of just this sort of
flip-flop about what kind of thing it is meant to be.
I lean toward the realism, and yet can't see that as being purely taken
as the goal for such an endeavor.
I fight with myself all the time about this stuff and can't see haggling
with others over it because I'm not about to pressure my side into it.
The IMP does have quite a bit going for it in the realism department,
judging by the standards being drawn out and what can be acheived versus
what can't. Like I say though, I hate to frustrate myself over this, let
alone others.
The cummulative IMP result certainly should be of somewhat homogeneous
order in any case, don't you think?
Hopefully I'll find a niche there again (and again) over time.

P.S. for obvious reasons I'm not going to email this into the IMP list,
don't want to make waves either ;)


Ken wrote:
> 
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> 
> > I don't care much for space scenes as long as I get my weekly dose of StarTrek
> > ;-)
> > The starry skies are perhaps not realistic, you could use them for effect. The
> > same as done in movies with a panoramic view where the top half of the screen is
> > getting darker, as if the sky would really look that way. You could even have a
> > movieposter with a desertlandscape in the middle of the day with sky growing
> > darker towards the top, even showing stars. It's all a matter of taste. If you
> > go for realism, perhaps you should just use some sort of filthy brownish gray,
> > for the average urban environment (on hot summerevenings the moon here is
> > actually orange in stead of pale).
> > I think the nightsky you describe takes an image away from realism and makes it
> > look more like a hollywood movie. Perhaps that explains why people would want to
> > do that. Besides: outside the POV-community it looks really great and few people
> > know where it comes from  ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Remco
> 
> I've notice that the original (read the "Real")  Star Trek, many of the big budget
> movies (star wars, star trek movies, etc), babylon 5, all seem to remain for
> the most part faithfull to reality.
>   I guess I should explain why I'm asking this question and to that I reply that
> I was looking at the task board for the  IMP Internet Movie Project, and
> noticed there are several modeling tasks open. Of these are modeling the
> planets in our solar system. I have seen some artist representations on Tom's
> site showing some pretty fantastic scenes with gas cloud around venus, and
> super bright stars with phenominal halo's glowing around them. While this may
> look good in a poster I'm not sure it's for the IMP. So if I choose to accept
> one of the modeling tasks I would like to take correct approach to it.
>   If everyone thinks that using everthing Pov can do to show off it's capabilities
> is the way to go I can do that. If realism is the case then a different philosiphy
> is needed.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob

Post a reply to this message