Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
> "Neil Kolban" <kol### [at] kolbancom> wrote in message 
> news:41eb07ef@news.povray.org...
> 
>>Folks,
>>I have bunches of ideas for rendering projects that I would like to
>>experiment with.  My question is kinda subtle ...
>>
>>Do you consider it "cheating" to use 3D models from the web that are other
>>peoples work as part of your composition?  For example, there are many 
>>great
>>models at www.3dcafe.com and others.  Is it common practice to take these
>>models and combine them with our own to build scenes?  Is that considered
>>poor practice and that to be considered a "good POV-Rayer" we should be
>>building our own models?
>>
>>What about for competitions like the IRTC?
>>
> 
> 
> 
> The quick answer is "no".  From what I've seen, it's not considered cheating 
> to use 3rd party models.
> 
> The longer answer is that it depends on who you ask.  If you read Gilles 
> Tran's list of 3rd party models for "The Wet Bird", which is probably the 
> most popular POV-Ray image ever created, you'll see a lot of 3rd party 
> models were used 
> (http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/gt_city.txt).  However, the 
> image itself is not simply based on 3rd party models.  He had to do a lot of 
> work.  One cannot simply throw a bunch of things into a scene and have it 
> look that good.  So, obtaining and using free models (or pay models) is not 
> generally frowned up, but it's also not lauded.  Using that same example, 
> some of the people in the IRTC did not like the fact that Gilles did not 
> create his own models 
> (http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-04-30/comments/gt_city.comments).
> 
> My personal feeling is that a lot of the models available from the Web 
> aren't very good, though there are some exceptions.  Then there are some 
> things that I simply cannot seem to create by myself, like humans, in which 
> case grabbing a 3rd party model is the only real option.  I like to make 
> things myself because I enjoy the experience, and because it gives me more 
> flexibility.  If I can't do it myself, or don't want to spend the time, then 
> I'd grab a model.
> 
> Overall, I would suggest that you don't simply grab a model and make it the 
> main focus of your image, but even then, there are exceptions.  Many people 
> here have used Poser models as the main subject of their images.  So, in the 
> end I guess it depends on what you do with the model.  Redoing the textures 
> on the '57 Chevy , and putting it on a flat surface isn't going to impress 
> very many people here, but this 
> (http://www.oyonale.com/ldc/english/chevys.htm) will.
> 
> As with most things, it's subjective.  Use your best judgement.
> 

Great answer!

It does seem that an image that simply "WOW's you" isn't quite enough, 
there has to be the perception of value added in the form of work or 
technical finesse too.  Though I love "Wet Bird" and I can think of no 
image that rocked me quite as thoroughly before or since

  ( well one, Gena's Sea round entry
http://www.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/2000-08-31/gosea.jpg )*


It always truck me as notable that "Wet Bird" took on such a 
transcendent status given that Gilles broke most of the cherished POVer 
rules.  The image used borrowed mesh models, extensive bitmapping, and 
false atmospheric effects.  From this I concluded that if an image WOW's 
the audience, all is forgiven.  I think it was the near stupifying 
photo-realism he achieved there.  And I also like Chris Huff's comments. 
  The Gilles has such a sense of how to make "things fit" together.  He 
is such a comsumate environment mapper, technician, and story teller, 
paired with his visual inventiveness, that where he gets the objects 
does not seem to matter.

But this is not so true usually.  We know that Doug Eichenberg
and we know he is a great modeller:
http://www.getinfo.net/douge/babbage.htm

but he also makes very poetic use of borrowed models:

http://www.getinfo.net/douge/siren.htm
http://www.getinfo.net/douge/capitol.htm

But these images were not treated nearly so well in the voting results.

*this entry was probably the one image that I ever thought transcended 
the form and became that undefinable thing called Art.

Post a reply to this message