Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
back for all the normals to be seen?

    Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
side.

    Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
more often than others.

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?

Having thought about this particular thing many times before I think I might
know my answer by now.
I put things together mostly by building from scratch, only cobbling a scene
together.  However, I've tried a few things which I wanted to be based on
reality as perceived or as photographed or even as measured.  So what
happens is that I create from that primary habit of piecing stuff together
but if the subject is realism, or rather reality, then I use sources to go
by.

>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.

Yes, and that's why stage-propping a scene is faster, easier and yet can be
too lacking.

>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.

The old saying, art for arts sake, but if it doesn't match up with a
preconceived idea it is destined to failure.  Actually that could be
debatable.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:

>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
> back for all the normals to be seen?


A bit of both.  I will usually start by trying to model things as they 
should be (almost to the point of thinking about intermolecular bonds) 
but after hours of frustration, will reluctantly revert to faking it.

But still can't come to terms with the concept of using object libraries 
or scanned images, unless told to.  I have so many failed reinvented 
wheels lying around my hard disk, it's not even funny.

>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
> side.


Same here.  I have spent numerous hours finagling over details that go 
on the back of an object that would appear facing the camera, just in 
case I wanted to reuse it at another angle or making sure that moveable 
parts are.

>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
> 


Agreed.  This is the main reason I've only ever submitted one IRTC entry.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a orthographic}

Post a reply to this message

Mostly I just model stuff. I don't worry about making a scene.
Maybe that is why I don't ever post pics here.

Bill DeWitt wrote:

>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
> 
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
> side.
> 
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

I tend to experiment with reality in both modelling and texturing, at the
expense of getting any serious project finished of course.

-tgq

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many
> try to model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a
> crowd of trees in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch
> of trees, or will you put up an image map of some trees on a box?

It depends on the level of detail required.

> When trying to make a texture, do you make it in detail every time, or
> do you let it slide if it is too far back for all the normals to be
> seen?

My textures are rarely complicated, so I can afford to make them work
at all scales.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

Most of the time I just model everything that's going to be in the scene,
but if there isn't going to be anything of much interest beyond a certain
point I just put everything inside a reflective sphere.
--
 camera{location<0,0.25,-2> look_at 0.5*y} #declare
T=texture{pigment{crackle scale 0.5 rotate 90 turbulence 0.75 color_map{[0
rgb 1][0.05 rgb 1][0.1 rgb<1,0.25,1>][0.25 rgbf 1][1 rgbf 1]}}
finish{ambient 1}} #declare c=difference{torus{0.5,0.1
rotate -90*x}box{<0.7,0,0.2>,<-0.7,-0.7,-0.2>}}  merge{object{c
translate<0.5,0.5,0>} object{c translate<-0.5,0.5,0>}
cylinder{<1,0.5,0>,<1,0,0>,0.1} cylinder{<-1,0.5,0>,<-1,0,0>,0.1}
cylinder{0.5*y,0,0.1} texture{T}}
//Mahalis
--

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

NO

- It never is.


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

> 
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. 

  I always try to get the appearance of reality by any mean, don't
matter if it is a phisically correct one or not. But this does not means
I model with detail all objects in the scene. In fact, most of my scenes
can't be rendered bigger because I used tricks that only work with
limited resolutions. I only have detailed objects at distance when I
reuse an old model, wich was on the foreground on a previous scene. 
 
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.

  Hmmm... not necesarily, but "usually" true. That's because an excess
of scruples can lead to never finish something. An old problem of art,
and many other human activities.

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message

Although most of my work so far has been more abstract (that is, things that
you won't find in real life), I make it in such a way that if it *did*
appear in real life, the mathematics behind it all would be identical. I
don't use hacks to make things look realistic if the workings behind them
are unrealistic, with a few exceptions. For example, I try to avoid
shadowless lights, because you don't find shadowless lights in the real
world. Stuff like that.

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?
>
>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.
>
>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.
>
>

Post a reply to this message