Some readers may be aware that I use PovRay for scientific visualisation
(among other things). I recently worked on a research project and PovRay
was used extensively including most of the figures in the final published
paper. I just wrote up some notes on the use of PovRay for one of the paper
images that was rendered in three very different ways: during the research,
as a diagram in a journal, and an attempt at photorealism for a large high
quality poster. For more information see
   http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/modelling/scifigure/

Post a reply to this message

Paul Bourke wrote:
> Some readers may be aware that I use PovRay for scientific visualisation
> (among other things). I recently worked on a research project and PovRay
> was used extensively including most of the figures in the final published
> paper. I just wrote up some notes on the use of PovRay for one of the paper
> images that was rendered in three very different ways: during the research,
> as a diagram in a journal, and an attempt at photorealism for a large high
> quality poster. For more information see
>    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/modelling/scifigure/

A few notes on the paper version (figure1):

- you are writing that it uses orthographic projection but the camera in 
the scene is perspective.
- for precise results you should better use a parallel light or no light 
source at all (just working with slope pattern etc.).
- i think the center object could well use some actual shading to 
illustrate the 3D nature even in the flat version.  Due to the light 
position at the camera the surface just gets dark on the left side for 
both orientations - you have to look very closely to see the direction 
of the twist.
- the shading on the right side object that is used to show the 3D 
nature could be emphasized by the use of radiosity (it would make the 
surface darker near the crossings and brighter at the areas more exposed 
to the environment).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 04 May. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Paul Bourke wrote:
> Some readers may be aware that I use PovRay...

Ehmm.. Our beloved raytracer's name is POV-Ray.

=)

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

I've always thought there's an interesting thing about 2D drawings being 
used to show 3D objects. Well, more of a strange hypothesis probably. 
Consider the cave paintings of prehistoric people, for example. Often a very 
2D look to them. Always made me think about whether that was due to a lack 
of understanding 3D or if, instead, there might be some kind of crucial 
factor to converting from 3D to 2D. I know people think of 2D as simple, 
kids begin by drawing lines and flat colors, but think about the conversion 
involved to go from 3D objects to 2D surfaces as a way to represent things. 
Maybe a voluntary reduction in perception? Shapes reduced in dimension must 
be some kind of effort, right? I just think it could be possible that 3D 
representations might seem incoherent when thought of as a depiction of 
something, 2D displays more info in a certain way. Spear-holding person 
about to throw at mammoth in a direction away from or toward viewer equals 
no spear to see.

Although, I must admit, that mobious in 2D wasn't such a thing until I read 
or saw the next picture.

All that aside, great bit of POV-Ray at work there, Paul.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H" <omniverse@charter%net> wrote in message 
news:44691fb6$1@news.povray.org...
> I've always thought there's an interesting thing about 2D drawings being 
> used to show 3D objects. Well, more of a strange hypothesis probably. 
> Consider the cave paintings of prehistoric people, for example. Often a 
> very 2D look to them. Always made me think about whether that was due to a 
> lack of understanding 3D or if, instead, there might be some kind of 
> crucial factor to converting from 3D to 2D. I know people think of 2D as 
> simple, kids begin by drawing lines and flat colors, but think about the 
> conversion involved to go from 3D objects to 2D surfaces as a way to 
> represent things. Maybe a voluntary reduction in perception?

It's been a (long) while, but if I recall my Art History course back in 
undergrad, I vaguely recollect a textbook mentioning that it wasn't a lack 
of ability to produce 3D artwork, it was the style of the time that produced 
many of the flat Egyptian-pyramid-like drawings.  So, I would agree with 
your 'voluntary reduction in perception' hypothesis...

Dunno, maybe that's way off base, but my swiss-cheese memory seems to recall 
such.

- How

Post a reply to this message