🚀 go-pugleaf

Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3759B435.5C4D538C@tomatoweb.com>...
:
:
:Quo Vadis wrote:
:
:> In article <37565117.F5FC497E@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
:> <emattila@tomatoweb.com> writes
:>
:> >In answer to your question about whether digital sketches could serve as
a
:> >model for a painting, I have my doubts.  When I was making these, I
thought a
:> >lot about how it would be in paint, and I think that the making of a
similar
:> >image in paint would got in other directions.  Many of the textures and
effects
:> >I've used, digitally, I could do in paint (at least I believe I can) but
the
:> >reality of a paint and carrier is such that it would be silly to
constrain
:> >yourself with trying to duplicate what was done digitally.
:> >
:> >Erik
:>
:> Erik: it doesn't seem to matter how one or where one puts down ideas -
:> in what medium we sketch I mean. I enjoyed some of your *sketches* -
:> particularly I think number two (the triangles). My real question is: do
:> you get the same *buzz* from working digitally as you would if you were
:> doing it with paint or print ?
:> Alison.
:
:Absolutely not (the 'buzz', that is).  The two mediums are exasperatingly
distant.
:The presence of the GUI (graphical users interface) in computer generated
images is
:like looking at the world through the wrong end of a telescope.
:
:But I can say this:  the dividing line between successful and failed
computer
:generated images rests with the artists training as an artist.  The big
problem is
:the promise of graphic software, e.g. that you too can be an artist if you
learn to
:push the right buttons.
:
:But you know, digressing to the 'fine line' I think Lauri's observation
about light
:is very profoud.  It's something that was right in front of me that was so
obvious
:that I didn't think of it.  So even if a good, archival technology is
developed
:(I'm thinking of the uncolor-fastness of the Glecee process) there is still
the
:problem of translating the inherent light of the CRT image to reflected
light.  I
:don't know how to get at this -- but I do know that I've seen crt images
printed
:that flop when they are printed.
:
:On the positive side, however, I would say this.  Given this problem -- I
want to
:explore abstract images to the degree that I will have a sense of a problem
and its
:solutions.  I think this can be done digitally, since a lot of the elements
you
:would want to manipulate in this kind of inquiry are applicable to computer
:imaging.  In that sense it is very similar to drawing, and a worthwhile
activity
:(in the context of actual painting).
:
:Last night I worked on a 3d image, as I mentioned I woud do in another
post.  This
:is another thing entirely.  The metaphorical interface is very intriguing.
But the
:downside is that it is time intensive.  You basically have the ability to
construct
:virtual models of objects, position the, and then paint them with images,
texture,
:(even movies -- called rotoscoping).  It is all very wonderful.  But once
you have
:all the elements assembled, defined, and positioned in XYZ metaphorical
space, you
:have to launch a renderer, which essentiall takes a photo of your
composition.  You
:have a broad range of choices, each one better and more detailed than the
next.
:Final rendering engines are trraditionally the 'ray traced images,' where
the
:software calculates how light would behave in the defined metaphorical
space --
:with some limitations, one important being it doesn't calculate ambient
light, i.e.
:how an orange object would influence the blue object next to it.  For this
you need
:another engine, called Radiosity, which actually calculates the influence
of light
:within a virtual environment.  Radiosity takes a long time, and pushes the
:capabilities of your computer to the max.
:
:What I'll do is post a ray traced image, followed by a radiosity image.
I'll have
:to do the rendering for the radiosity in stages, since it looks like the
8.5
:megabyte model will take about 30 hours of cpu time to render.  If anyone
wants to
:mail me a check for 4500 dollars, I'll buy a new Mac G3/450 mhz machine,
and cut
:the rendering time in fifths.  Otherwise...well, good things are worth
waiting for.
:
:Digitally,
:Erik
: