ingo wrote:

> in news:3e9efa16@news.povray.org Andreas Kreisig wrote:
> 
>> I don't know Amapi (just tried it a view month ago) but generally a
>> modeler will allow you to make organic and / or realistic looking
>> objects. You can't do that with POV-Rays SDL.
> 
> I have to disagree! Anything can be done in SDL, if you have the right
> macros and a lot of time. On the other hand the same can be said of
> doing something simple in SDL that turns out to be something complex
> with a modeller. There actually may be a reason for the fact that more
> and more GUI modellers also incorporate a scripting language.

In fact you really need a lot of time. But most images made with SDL are 
somewhat geometrical. Scripting languages in GUI modelers have been used to 
add modeling features or small tools. No one will use it to model something 
with it. Okay, sometimes SDL may be faster when the object you want to make 
is based on mathematical algorithms.

>> Most images posted at
>> p.b.i are nice, some are quite impressive, but none are really
>> realistic.
> 
> Please define realistic.

A view examples: with a lot of patience you can make something like a car, 
but you're not able to make a Porsche 911 or a VW Golf or whatever. You can 
make something like a bottle, but it's very hard to make a Jack Daniels 
bottle. You can try to make a human head but that's nearly impossible with 
SDL. Most SDL based images I saw in the past are rather simplyfied (anyway 
they're nice but that's not what I want to point out).

>> In my opinion the SDL is not very well suited to build a
>> scene. Not worth mentioning that this is a very unnatural way to
>> create something.
> 
> Yet again I have to disagree. SDL can be seen as a modelling language
> or as an intermediate format between a GUI and the raytracer. If you
> export your Maya models to POV-Ray, however "realistic" they are,
> you're still using SDL.

Yes, the informations will be stored into mesh2 format. From this point of 
view SDL is an interface like you mentioned it. But it's not very usefull 
when you want to use it as a modelling language (depending on what you want 
to do with it, of course).

> ps. I'm not advocating the pure use of SDL here, POV-Ray IMO is 'just' a
> tool to get a result. To get that result I may, or may not, use other
> tools. And realism is IMO not the holy grail of graphics, ever seen a
> negative light source in reality. No? Yet in POV-Ray you can use them.

You're right regarding realism. On the other side POV-Ray is an outstanding 
Raytracer (I really love it) wich is able to create photorealistic images, 
but most of the images made with it are ... chrome balls on checkered 
floors in all variations. Realism is not the holy grail but it's one of the 
most ambitious chalanges in CG. POV-Ray can do that but you can't reach it 
when you only use the SDL. You definitive need other tools.
Well, there're some people who can do fantastic things with SDL but they've 
years of experience and often third party tools. I'm too unpatient for that 
and bevor I waste my time to learn the SDL en detail to make some balls or 
cones I rather use Blender. :)

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message