"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:44b5235e$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if someone made a professional looking 5M poly mesh of 
>> a car and just rendered it on a white plane with a spotlight, they would 
>> get very high technical merit and almost zero artistic from me.
>
> Maybe its just me, but with no explanation of how they created that 
> mesh... I dunno, Wings is a subdivision modeler, Its relatively easy to 
> make a mesh object in that type of modeler, which is why I kind of 
> disagree w/ the technical merit score on that particular image. Nothing 
> groundbreaking. I guess thats what bothers me most is that there was no 
> explanation. That leaves questions...
>
> Hmm, I guess if one did as much as they could to model an object 100% 
> accurate to the original, it would be technical merit.

   Hi Mike

     No offence, but why would something have to be 100% accurate when using 
a modelling program to gain technical merit?

      It may be the case where that author has discovered a new method in 
modelling and doesn't want to give it up yet (text-wise), or, it may be the 
case where that author has just done a fine job (and I think so in this 
case).

   As for my image, (which I know you weren't talking about, but is in the 
same veign as a couple of other images), do you think that sax would play?

   It looks like it could, but I assure you that it couldn't.  ;)

   I think even our very own GT mentioned a while back that it's useless to 
model what's 'behind' the main image.

   ~Steve~






> -- 
> ~Mike
>
> Things! Billions of them!

Post a reply to this message