Kenneth wrote:
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> 
>>    This image is very nice, but the animation is amazing, almost beyond the
>> AWSOME ROLEX level... Maybe there are flaws, but I cannot spot any, and I
>> tried a lot of times. The whole action is so convincing that it is very
>> difficult to do something more that just enjoying it with the mouth totally
>> open...
> 
> Wow--thank you.  Coming from 'the master,' that is high praise indeed.
> (Honestly, I don't think I could ever hope to match the level of your work.)
> Your's is the 'standard candle' that I--and surely many others--aspire to.
> 
> While working on this scene, a rather 'uncomfortable' idea began to nag me: With
> all of the *cheating* and tricks that I was coming up with--to reduce render
> time--it also became apparent that I was kind of getting further and further
> away from using POV-Ray's core ray-tracing strengths. E.g, transparency, media,
> shadowing--there's very little of each. No AA either. And lots of image_maps,
> with few procedural textures.

I am thinking that your animation casts back to the famous 'Wet Bird' 
image.  With his methods for that picture Gilles threatened some of the 
POV-Ray community's sacred cows about what was somehow cheating and what 
was considered genuine ray tracing methods.  But the image itself was 
just so jaw-dropping and compelling that such fussing got forgotten.

'Limping Back Home' is an exciting piece of work for the compelling look 
of it in its realism, complexity and dynamism.  And you used inventive 
technical methods to accomplish it.  But finally it is the artistry of 
it, the look of it that compels.  If you make people go "WOW!" that is 
what matters in the end.

If Ibe Rasmussen models a church by measuring it in person and then 
placing every brick separately that is a different use of the ray tracer 
with a different, and yet equally compelling, underpinning, conceptually.

Post a reply to this message