Bill DeWitt wrote:

>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too far
> back for all the normals to be seen?


A bit of both.  I will usually start by trying to model things as they 
should be (almost to the point of thinking about intermolecular bonds) 
but after hours of frustration, will reluctantly revert to faking it.

But still can't come to terms with the concept of using object libraries 
or scanned images, unless told to.  I have so many failed reinvented 
wheels lying around my hard disk, it's not even funny.

>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the other
> side.


Same here.  I have spent numerous hours finagling over details that go 
on the back of an object that would appear facing the camera, just in 
case I wanted to reuse it at another angle or making sure that moveable 
parts are.

>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good scenes
> more often than others.
> 


Agreed.  This is the main reason I've only ever submitted one IRTC entry.

-- 
/*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>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a orthographic}

Post a reply to this message