 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I followed the lead of the last comment and found the real thing:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCIkbr9HCcw
>
> Wow!
I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 4/5/2012 8:49 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> On 05/04/2012 04:47 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2012 5:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> What makes you think it isn't POV-Ray?
>>>
>>> 1) You can tell just by looking.
>>
>> Are you seriously saying "you can tell by the pixels"?
>>
>
> In the sense that making any such comment about a digital image or video
> amounts to "I can tell by the pixels", yes.
So I guess you've seen quite a few images in your days...
--
/*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>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/6/2012 1:59, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 03:30 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:04, clipka wrote:
>>> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
>>
>> I always thought it would be awesome fun to write the program that
>> calculates those visuals. Sync the animation to the music and stuff like
>> that.
>
> Not in realtime though. It needs to fire each ball a second or so /before/
> the note sounds. ;-)
That's the point, yes. :-) That's the sort of thing that would make it fun.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 06/04/2012 03:24, Warp escreveu:
> Nekar Xenos<nek### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:04:43 +0200, clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>>> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo
>
>> I followed the lead of the last comment and found the real thing:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCIkbr9HCcw
>
> Life imitates art?
no doubt!
much awesomeness in the original video and the real world replica by
Intel...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>> I followed the lead of the last comment and found the real thing:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCIkbr9HCcw
>>
>> Wow!
>
> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
you're a weird geek.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>
> you're a weird geek.
Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P
I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they
just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean,
the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and
fake the whole thing.
It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
first...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 09/04/2012 21:20, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
>>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>>
>> you're a weird geek.
>
> Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P
>
> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they
> just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean,
> the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and
> fake the whole thing.
>
> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
> first...)
The OP is obviously a computer-generated animation, the stochastic
movement of balls are not reflected in the size of the collecting cones.
Most obvious "unreal" is the metalophone: the amplitude of moving parts
are such... they do not oscillate enough from one hit to another to
perturb the collecting cone, yet they move a lot when hit.
The Intel construction is avoiding that very part: you do not see any
collect of balls. I guess they are at least fair for the sound part:
they used plastic and detector to trigger the sound, but they could have
use some real sounding-metal to do it (but it takes more sciences than
electronic to make a sounding instrument).
Yet, no collect, no cigar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo
You can download a version for your graphics card here:
http://developer.amd.com/archive/legacydemos/pages/ATIRadeon9700Real-TimeDemos.aspx
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>>
>> you're a weird geek.
>
> Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P
>
> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they
> just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean,
> the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and
> fake the whole thing.
>
> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
> first...)
plastic pads are much easier for a ball to hit than a metallic string.
Give the guys enough error margin...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound,
>> they just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I
>> mean, the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't
>> hit, and fake the whole thing.
>>
>> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
>> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
>> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
>> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
>> first...)
>
> plastic pads are much easier for a ball to hit than a metallic string.
> Give the guys enough error margin...
That's why it's less awesome.
It's easier to play a nursery rhyme than to play a symphony - but the
latter is so much more impressive. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
