|
|
Mike the Elder wrote:
> Now is probably as good a time as any to share a few thoughts I have
> regarding what seems to be an assumption with respect photo-realism that
> often enters into discussion of ray trace images.
> This being said, I would encourage anyone who does engage in criticism of
> ray trace art (or in the making of it) to refrain from assuming that the
> goal.
I know that I am guilty of that sort of assumption a lot. :-)
However, let me argue that case for a moment. Why would you use
raytracing if you're not after photorealism?
There's hundreds of different 3D rendering packages out there that don't
use raytracing. They typically use DirectX/OpenGL shaders, and with the
right hardware can work in realtime, giving you *instant* feedback as
you're working. Even without hardware acceleration, they are still much
faster and simpler to work with than actual raytracing.
The main advantage of raytracing over other forms of 3D rendering *is*
photorealism. It can create realistic shadows, reflections, and global
illumination.
Now, if you just happen to work better with Pov SDL than with a modeler,
that's fine. (I *love* SDL.) There's some other toys out there for
people who want to create images in code (http://processing.org/ comes
to mind), but there's not many of them and they're not as finished as
Povray.
But if you're going to build something in, say, Wings3D and then export
it into POV, I'm going to assume that's because you want Povray to do
something that Wings' built-in renderer can't do. My guess is that
something is photorealism, but otherwise I'm curious what it would be.
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you know the average
number of hairs on a human head.
Quietly Watching
Post a reply to this message
|
|