Painting a Selfie Girl, with Maths
Kuemmel (439) 358 posts |
…just wanted to share this for people interested in mathematical art…another superb making-of by the best shader coder on the planet: Painting a Selfie Girl, with Maths The shader/shadercode itself can be found here It won the 4 KByte Exe-Graphics compo on this years Revision demo party. Don’t try to view this on RISC OS or a computer with a super old graphics card ;-) |
Paul Sprangers (346) 214 posts |
The instruction video is even more bloody amazing than the result itself. |
Rick Murray (539) 11218 posts |
Huh… High school mathematics? I was never able to create a winter wonderland and girl with maths. Must be doing something wrong with my life. But, yes. WTactualF. All of that from a pile of scary looking equations? Kind of makes you doubt reality. Maybe we’re all just formulae? |
Steve Pampling (1551) 6995 posts |
Ah, yes, and good at mathematical programming would you have practiced to be if you could create a “hard light”^{1} anime girl?
So how simple is the equation for Trump? :) Much thinking ^{1} Mixing a bit of Red Dwarf in there for you. |
GavinWraith (26) 1287 posts |
I agree. The picture itself I dislike. What is with the huge glassy eyes? The absence of wrinkles? The commerrcial overtones swamp the human ones. There have been dozens of artists and draughtsmen with their own styles whose efforts I would find more attractive. There appears to be a whole industry of animation whose productions plumb the depths of kitsch. Now software that could reproduce the style of an artist, that I would like to see. |
John WILLIAMS (8368) 378 posts |
I remember software that could reproduce the style of a composer – JS Bach IIRC – so why not? I see that our new user 8905 has absorbed the idea that this forum is nothing to do with computers or RISC OS in their very first posting and is already better at it than we are! |
DavidS (1854) 2293 posts |
This reminds me of the math art we did in Jr. High (before High School in the USA). We were using fairly low powered computers to do the rendering (Macintosh LC, I think), and coding the renderer in Pascal, so it did take some time to do nicer renderings. Now he produces an animated rendering that would have taken to long on a Macintosh of that time to produce, so way ahead of what we could do with one hour maximum render time back then. Though I do remember the fun of creating the math to produce objects, and integrating it with the math to produce the renderings. Math is truly fun, this is the kind of math that really caught my imagination when I was a kid. I wish we had the opportunity to attempt apparent smooth surfaces back then. Instead we had to step and plot points that were later joined by phong shaded polygons (triangles in practice), in order to keep the rendering time down to acceptable. I hope he continues to show like this. Have now looked at a few of his videos about this kind of programming, just needs to cover the details that he relies on being provided outside his code. Math by graphics captures the interest of all that enjoy either. This kind of math is used a lot in many areas of programming, not just graphics. So it should all be very familiar to any computer user (not a computer interacter, rather a computer user), as all that actually use computers write some programs of some kind (unlike those that just interact with computer programs written by others [computer interacters]).
Nice rendering, even if relying on somethings to be provided for outside the base math. Would be fun to redo this to include all needed math, and then re-code it to use software rendering on RISC OS framebuffer (including all the math used instead of cheating).
No, more of Jr High school mathematics. Though the rendering routines would require some more advanced math that is omitted in his example. He relies on certain things being done for him.
I agree. Though this is a simple example that is kind of kool in its extreme simplicity that can be understood by just about anyone. For this I give the arthur credit, not so much for the choice of image.
I think this unlikely, as all good art to date is produced by human artists and mathematicians. For a computer program to create true art would likely require moving towards machine sentience.
To reproduce a style, is quite different from the act of creatig. |
Steve Pampling (1551) 6995 posts |
Some people do things “in the style of” for fun, as well as their own compositions. e.g. Probably not the version of the Beatles classic Eleanor Rigby that most people would know. |
Reply
To post replies, please first log in.