 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/5/2012 1:40 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!
>
Totally awesome, thanks for tracking that down!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.04.2012 14:12, schrieb Invisible:
> What makes you think it isn't POV-Ray?
Just a "gut feeling" from what they write on their website.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> 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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-04-05 11:53, Kevin Wampler a écrit :
> 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] gmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
