 | | | | | | |
| |
|
A friend of mine was raving about how good
Poser6 was. So I bought a copy.
I have gotten a prototype to export from Poser6 to basic Lego outline.
Most of this was just getting the model into a format that could be used in the
manner that I described for the Stanford Bunny. This would then allow instructions to be
generated.
The real problem was dealing with the fact that the poser models are in general
not watertight. This causes some problems with CSG operations, but this can be
dealt with.
I used the rib file export. I filtered out the ground and camera. The rest of
the triangles I arranged into povray mesh2 format. I declared this mesh2 as a
macro with the inside_vector as a parameter of the macro.
#macro MeshObject(outsideVector)
mesh2 {
vertex_vectors {
...
}
face_indices {
...
}
inside_vector outsideVector
}
#end
|
|
This then allows the macro to be used in several overlapping copies to deal with
the holes in the model:
...
union
{
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,0,1>)
MeshObject(<0,0,-1>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,1,0>)
MeshObject(<0,-1,0>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<1,0,0>)
MeshObject(<-1,0,0>)
}
}
...
|
|
This seems to work filling in the holes in the model. It does slow down the
rendering a lot, but is necessary.
Then slices are rendered through the model as described in the bunny document
(using the above union in the bunny’s intersect block). These slices are shrunk
down to the correct size, and then each pixel is interpreted as a 1x1 brick.
This output could then be passed to the
filling software, but a friend says that he would prefer just to fill in the
outlines by hand.
The results appear good.
Important Note: I am not a lawyer. I don’t know about the licensing issues
associated with the Poser models. There may be issues using these in sculptures
for sale. Is this a “still image” or a “simplification”?
-dw
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.build.sculpture, David Winkler wrote:
A friend of mine was raving about how good
Poser6 was. So I bought a
copy. I have gotten a prototype to export from Poser6 to basic Lego outline.
Most of this was just getting the model into a format that could be used in
the manner that I described for the
Stanford Bunny. This would
then allow instructions to be
generated.
The real problem was dealing with the fact that the poser models are in
general not watertight. This causes some problems with CSG operations, but
this can be dealt with.
I used the rib file export. I filtered out the ground and camera. The rest
of the triangles I arranged into povray mesh2 format. I declared this mesh2
as a macro with the inside_vector as a parameter of the macro.
#macro MeshObject(outsideVector)
mesh2 {
vertex_vectors {
...
}
face_indices {
...
}
inside_vector outsideVector
}
#end
|
|
This then allows the macro to be used in several overlapping copies to deal
with the holes in the model:
...
union
{
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,0,1>)
MeshObject(<0,0,-1>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,1,0>)
MeshObject(<0,-1,0>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<1,0,0>)
MeshObject(<-1,0,0>)
}
}
...
|
|
This seems to work filling in the holes in the model. It does slow down the
rendering a lot, but is necessary.
Then slices are rendered through the model as described in the bunny document
(using the above union in the bunny’s intersect block). These slices are
shrunk down to the correct size, and then each pixel is interpreted as a 1x1
brick. This output could then be passed to the
filling software, but a friend says that he would prefer just to fill in the
outlines by hand.
The results appear good.
Important Note: I am not a lawyer. I don’t know about the licensing issues
associated with the Poser models. There may be issues using these in
sculptures for sale. Is this a “still image” or a “simplification”?
-dw
----
This might be of interest to .cad.ray. X-posted
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.sculpture, David Winkler wrote:
| |
A friend of mine was raving about how good
Poser6 was. So I bought a
copy. I have gotten a prototype to export from Poser6 to basic Lego outline.
Most of this was just getting the model into a format that could be used in
the manner that I described for the
Stanford Bunny. This would
then allow instructions to be
generated.
The real problem was dealing with the fact that the poser models are in
general not watertight. This causes some problems with CSG operations, but
this can be dealt with.
I used the rib file export. I filtered out the ground and camera. The rest
of the triangles I arranged into povray mesh2 format. I declared this mesh2
as a macro with the inside_vector as a parameter of the macro.
#macro MeshObject(outsideVector)
mesh2 {
vertex_vectors {
...
}
face_indices {
...
}
inside_vector outsideVector
}
#end
|
|
This then allows the macro to be used in several overlapping copies to deal
with the holes in the model:
...
union
{
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,0,1>)
MeshObject(<0,0,-1>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<0,1,0>)
MeshObject(<0,-1,0>)
}
intersection
{
MeshObject(<1,0,0>)
MeshObject(<-1,0,0>)
}
}
...
|
|
This seems to work filling in the holes in the model. It does slow down the
rendering a lot, but is necessary.
Then slices are rendered through the model as described in the bunny document
(using the above union in the bunny’s intersect block). These slices are
shrunk down to the correct size, and then each pixel is interpreted as a 1x1
brick. This output could then be passed to the
filling software, but a friend says that he would prefer just to fill in the
outlines by hand.
The results appear good.
...
Important Note: I am not a lawyer. I don’t know about the licensing issues
associated with the Poser models. There may be issues using these in
sculptures for sale. Is this a “still image” or a “simplification”?
-dw
|
Still haven’t heard back from the Poser software vendor. I’m starting to think
that they don’t take Legos seriously. ;)
I added a more interesting pose to the
folder and a
9000x6000 render.
-dw
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.sculpture, David Winkler wrote:
| |
Important Note: I am not a lawyer. I don’t know about the licensing issues
associated with the Poser models. There may be issues using these in
sculptures for sale. Is this a “still image” or a “simplification”?
-dw
|
At the recent BrickFest, there was a discussion of a few artsy-fartsy types at
Rocklands over a good bit of good beer about “Art and LEGO” and whether it
existed -or whether it was just translation of existing work into a new medium.
You are in my opinion getting very close with your sculptures to creating
something new.
The translation of the figure into plastic blocks, actually intensifies the
concept of the modern man, by the use of this medium. Modular, synthetic,
computerized, mathmatical, with a lack of curves (or rather the generation of
the curves by means of discrete individual objects), actually takes the original
model to a new and different emotional and intellectual level, and therefore,
perhaps really does achieve a piece of art.
It does perhaps illuminate to the person experiencing the sculpture, a way of
looking at man in a different way--from a different point of view. It does this
for me. It is irrelevent whether that was really the artist’s intention or not.
For with a piece of art, such as a painting, sculpture,photo, piece of music,
novel, or dance will evoke different emotional and intellectual responses from
each individual viewing it. To me, to see the human form displayed such as in
your brilliant piece, says to me what we perhaps have become, and at the same
time what we might not want to become--that is an algorithm of simple parts
hooked together--like a computer program.
Without a doubt, if the posed model was created, even within a piece of
software, by you, with the intent of creating a piece of sculpture, that would
definitely be an original piece of art--you would hold the copyright--you would
be the owner. If it is derivative of someone else’s model, as you seem to allude
to, then it is perhaps just a simplicfication as you say, albeit an incredible
one.
Or if you collaborated with the original artist to create the finished product,
then that would be something really unique with both of yall being the “owners”.
However to take a picture of someone elses, and then translate it into a mosaic
with some sort of algorithmic process, I do not think, is an original piece of
art. It would be similar to taking an Ansel Adams photo, scan it , import it
into Photoshop, and manipulate it--that would be essentially be a transformation
of the original work of art.
But if you took the origial picture, and did the same thing, it would be
original--might not be good, but would be intellectually your own.
You have, I believe, with the tools you have created, enabled some true original
pieces to be created.
Look forward very, very much to seeing the next step.
Tommy ARmstrong
PS Now if you could get Bram to create stainless steel bricks and tranlated it
into metal--that would be kewl also. (And very permanent). But then it would not
be plastic either--evoking a different response.
| | | | | | |
