 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo
blocked at work, but assuming it's not a rolex...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> clipka escreveu:
> > Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo
>
> blocked at work, but assuming it's not a rolex...
It's not a rolex....
.....but it looks procedurally generated.
I think I can see how to do it in POV-Ray - or am I missing something? Very
enjoyable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/04/2012 02:04 PM, clipka wrote:
> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
Oh, this again.
What makes you think it isn't POV-Ray?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
2) It's easy to find a list of the software they use, and POV-Ray isn't
on it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"?
> 2) It's easy to find a list of the software they use, and POV-Ray isn't
> on it.
OK, that would be a valid reason.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Wow!
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:49:14 +0100, 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"?
It looks more like it was done in Blender's renderer to me. There are
characteristics in generation software that do tend to produce a certain
kind of lighting characteristic or texturing characteristic that seem to
be fairly consistent.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/04/2012 9:40 PM, Nekar Xenos 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
>
> Wow!
>
Funny, I could not hear the sound of the pneumatics.
Oh! And do you think that Intel had anything to do with it?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
