It took some time, but here is some progress in my "planar-structures-project".
Why am I using blobs and not bezier patches or triangles. One reason is that I
have more practice with blobs and no practice with the others. Another reason is
that I was not satisfied when I tried these techniques long time ago. As far as
I know these techniques won't give you real objects you can use for
intersections or something like this. The objects don't have a real thickness.
But anyway, here comes the beech leaf. Youtube-video is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYIla_mx4I and the scripts under
https://github.com/tjrfester/Modeling-nature-planar-structures.

Now I will try to submit a gif here - let's see how it works...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'beechleaf.gif' (503 KB)

Preview of image 'beechleaf.gif'

"Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
> It took some time, but here is some progress in my "planar-structures-project".
> Why am I using blobs and not bezier patches or triangles. One reason is that I
> have more practice with blobs and no practice with the others. Another reason is
> that I was not satisfied when I tried these techniques long time ago. As far as
> I know these techniques won't give you real objects you can use for
> intersections or something like this. The objects don't have a real thickness.
> But anyway, here comes the beech leaf. Youtube-video is available at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGYIla_mx4I and the scripts under
> https://github.com/tjrfester/Modeling-nature-planar-structures.
>
> Now I will try to submit a gif here - let's see how it works...

Very nice! And done with blobs!?

I've play with blobs on my old and slow computer. So I never did anything as
complicated as what you've just done. You make me want to try to play with some
more on my newer computer.
Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
> It took some time, but here is some progress in my "planar-structures-project".
> Why am I using blobs and not bezier patches or triangles. One reason is that I
> have more practice with blobs and no practice with the others. Another reason is
> that I was not satisfied when I tried these techniques long time ago. As far as
> I know these techniques won't give you real objects you can use for
> intersections or something like this. The objects don't have a real thickness.

Hi Thomas,
I like the beech leaf.

The manner in which you're constructing your leaf reminded me of two project
that I worked on many years ago.

And wouldn't you know it: YOU are the guy who provided me with the method to
make my propeller!  :D  So I've known of, and benefited from your work since
2014.

https://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3C53db81e2%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.53dd26749e0d00ba5e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E

LONG thread:
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.5441f12ccbb3d8155e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.54
41f12ccbb3d8155e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E


Have you considered using a prism to get a solid object with a "custom" outline?
You could also possibly use mesh/mesh2 with an inside vector.  Make the top
surface of the leaf, replicate that with an offset, and then fill in the sides.
to make a "box" for each section of your leaf.

- BW

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
> It took some time, but here is some progress in my "planar-structures-project".
> ...
> Now I will try to submit a gif here - let's see how it works...

works real well, the (very beautiful) leaf turns, perhaps, a tad too quick :-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
> > It took some time, but here is some progress in my "planar-structures-project".
> > Why am I using blobs and not bezier patches or triangles. One reason is that I
> > have more practice with blobs and no practice with the others. Another reason is
> > that I was not satisfied when I tried these techniques long time ago. As far as
> > I know these techniques won't give you real objects you can use for
> > intersections or something like this. The objects don't have a real thickness.
>
> Hi Thomas,
> I like the beech leaf.
>
> The manner in which you're constructing your leaf reminded me of two project
> that I worked on many years ago.
>
> And wouldn't you know it: YOU are the guy who provided me with the method to
> make my propeller!  :D  So I've known of, and benefited from your work since
> 2014.
>
> https://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/thread/%3C53db81e2%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.53dd26749e0d00ba5e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E
>
> LONG thread:
>
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/message/%3Cweb.5441f12ccbb3d8155e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3Cweb.
54
> 41f12ccbb3d8155e7df57c0%40news.povray.org%3E
>
>
> Have you considered using a prism to get a solid object with a "custom" outline?
> You could also possibly use mesh/mesh2 with an inside vector.  Make the top
> surface of the leaf, replicate that with an offset, and then fill in the sides.
> to make a "box" for each section of your leaf.
>
> - BW

Isn't it weird for how long we are doing this? (But each one of us is also doing
other things, thanks god...)

I have to reflect about your alternative propositions for leaf construction, but
currently I am trying to adapt my method to a maple leaf. (Pretty difficult)

One thing the blob approach does not do (as far as I know) is different textures
on the upper and lower side of the leaf. That's a pity since most leaves do have
different textures on their the upper and lower side...

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:

> Isn't it weird for how long we are doing this? (But each one of us is also doing
> other things, thanks god...)

Indeed, and we have all learned so much along the way, and met so many
interesting and creative people.

> I have to reflect about your alternative propositions for leaf construction, but
> currently I am trying to adapt my method to a maple leaf. (Pretty difficult)

I think that you will come up with something workable.

> One thing the blob approach does not do (as far as I know) is different textures
> on the upper and lower side of the leaf. That's a pity since most leaves do have
> different textures on their the upper and lower side...

Well, you can always try to make a difference {} of the main leaf and a "cutter"
leaf to subtract away a thin layer from the bottom of the leaf - and the
subtracted surface will have the texture of the "cutter".

If you're still looking for a way to "sculpt" your shape so that it's not a
mathematically flat plane, then take a look at the old "Object Bender" by Chris
Colefax.

Also, Chris R does almost everything with isosurfaces, and he might have some
advice about making an isosurface leaf, which you could then properly bend an
object, like so:

https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5d4b7ce3a683fa3a4eec112d0%40news.povray.org%3E/

- BW

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
>
> > Isn't it weird for how long we are doing this? (But each one of us is also doing
> > other things, thanks god...)
>
> Indeed, and we have all learned so much along the way, and met so many
> interesting and creative people.
>
> > I have to reflect about your alternative propositions for leaf construction, but
> > currently I am trying to adapt my method to a maple leaf. (Pretty difficult)
>
> I think that you will come up with something workable.
>
> > One thing the blob approach does not do (as far as I know) is different textures
> > on the upper and lower side of the leaf. That's a pity since most leaves do have
> > different textures on their the upper and lower side...
>
> Well, you can always try to make a difference {} of the main leaf and a "cutter"
> leaf to subtract away a thin layer from the bottom of the leaf - and the
> subtracted surface will have the texture of the "cutter".
>
> If you're still looking for a way to "sculpt" your shape so that it's not a
> mathematically flat plane, then take a look at the old "Object Bender" by Chris
> Colefax.
>
> Also, Chris R does almost everything with isosurfaces, and he might have some
> advice about making an isosurface leaf, which you could then properly bend an
> object, like so:
>
>
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5d4b7ce3a683fa3a4eec112d0%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
> - BW

This was my most recent scene creating leaves from isosurfaces:
https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.6669faf39aa7eb7453fb81ab5cc1b6e%40news.povray.org%3E/

For these, I found an interesting 2-D polar function to start with and started
playing with it to get the edges I wanted.  It's pretty easy to extrude that in
along the Y axis to get whatever thickness you want, and you can apply different
textural deformations to the top side and bottom side of the shape.  Then you
can transform the Y coordinate to get the 3-D curves from the flat shape.

Getting a different texture on the bottom and top of the leaf is a little
trickier, but can be done by splitting the leaf shape function in half and
applying a different texture on each half.

-- Chris R

Post a reply to this message

"Chris R" <car### [at] comcastnet> wrote:

> For these, I found an interesting 2-D polar function to start with and started
> playing with it to get the edges I wanted.

So, presumably you're doing something like this:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1587947/the-plot-of-a-leaf

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Chris R" <car### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>
> > For these, I found an interesting 2-D polar function to start with and started
> > playing with it to get the edges I wanted.
>
> So, presumably you're doing something like this:
> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1587947/the-plot-of-a-leaf

O.k., I see where this is leading to... I would like to include a bit more
randomness to my leaves, but perhaps one could simply add some small amount of
variation to the mathematical formula.

For me, the diversity of approaches possible in Pov-Ray is really amazing. I am
doing this for quite some time, but nevertheless, there are always approaches,
which I never tried and I have problems to understand...

Another thing I wanted to add when thinking about the past is how glad I am that
splines have become available under Pov-Ray. Sphere-sweeps were terrible...

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas Fester" <tfe### [at] scivitde> wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > "Chris R" <car### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> >
> > > For these, I found an interesting 2-D polar function to start with and started
> > > playing with it to get the edges I wanted.
> >
> > So, presumably you're doing something like this:
> > https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1587947/the-plot-of-a-leaf
>
> O.k., I see where this is leading to... I would like to include a bit more
> randomness to my leaves, but perhaps one could simply add some small amount of
> variation to the mathematical formula.

Yes - just use a multiple of the function f_noise3d (x,y,z) as a proxy for rand
(Seed)

> For me, the diversity of approaches possible in Pov-Ray is really amazing. I am
> doing this for quite some time, but nevertheless, there are always approaches,
> which I never tried and I have problems to understand...

Just always keep pushing forward.  There's almost always a way to do nearly
anything - we've had so many talented people contribute to the source.  And feel
free to just come up with any idea - a final goal - and ask how you might go
about achieving it.

- BW

Post a reply to this message