On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:34:45 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>I think it is mostly the foreground trees that give it away. It is not 
>that the trees aren't believable,
>  it is that they are identifyable raytraced tree "species".

Yes I see that now you mention it. I haven't used trees yet and they
do look a bit gnarly. 
I thought that the shadows were just a bit off as if the sun was too
close. But then I was looking hard for a clue. What decided me was
when I tiled it on my desktop as wallpaper. The symmetry is a
give-a-way. So I agree with Loki.

>  That and a certain regularity to the general "randomness"  and
>perhaps some flaws introduced by photography itself.  But suppose the 
>history of art had proceeded directly from painting to raytracing and 
>photography had never existed?

Does that exclude paintings made with the help of a camera obscura?
Which leads onto "no television" no computer displays hence no
raytracing!  Hmm! Big thoughts. I know, we suspend disbelieve. 
The pre Raphaelites never got started and impressionism leaked into
mainstream GUI's. The Dada school designed keyboards and all the keys
felt like dead fish. 
My head hurts I wish you had not thought that thought :-)


Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message