I agree but (there are always a but)
if the purpose it to make picture which are not photorealistic it is not
necessary to add functionnality to software like Povray (I mean caustic,
radiosity,...). I think that it is necessary to try to improve all softwares to
be able to make photorealistic picture. This is a good research field (I am
researcher in physics and I appreciate the work make by the people who work in
this field). But after, you do what you want with this software, photorealistic
picture or not (and there I agree with you :) ).
Photorealistic means that this must look like a photo. But you can always say
that the scene occur in another world where, for example, the sun is pointlike,
in this way no area_light is needed. But one can add, in this world the water
is red and look like the wood of the earth etc... So ok but to be credible, a
scene must look like a scene which appear on earth with all the caracteristic
that we know, and this, even if you describe other world etc... Look the last
Star Wars. There some strange monster etc.. but all look very credible, very
realistic (even if I never see these monsters before :) ).

But to finish, I don't attack you :)! Every one make as he wants, and the
critics are made to progress. But I just means that one must try do a scene
like scene we see every day in the life to be credible. But you know I am a
scientist so I like perfectionism perhaps I need to be more poet sometime :).
But the purpose of my message was to test Povray, and I sure that one can make
spectacular good result with this software. This is why I post this message,
it's all.

But I don't agree with this

>Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist either.

Look on some university site or commercial site (like www.mental.com, this is
the site of mentalray). Or the link give by Gilles tran in the answer to my
post: look the pictures without read the comment and tell me which is the photo
and which is the render picture! me, ... well I cannot tell!

Fabian.

Simen Kvaal wrote:

> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.

Post a reply to this message