Paris wrote:
> I've decided to start a new thread instead of adding to the very large
> thread that exploded from my last post.   The messages ended up deviating
> from the original points anyway.

So you start a new thread because you don't want to address the issues 
raised by those who replied.

And now you repeat the same claims again - starting with a completely 
wrong explanation of a BRDF and not getting much better later.  Just 
repeating a wrong claim does not make them right.

The examples of non-POV-Ray renders you have shown show nothing 
impossible in POV-Ray.  Most of them can be easily made in much higher 
quality with POV-Ray.

> The main point of my original post (and this one) shall be repeated here for
> emphasis.  My point is that Pov-Ray is lagging behind commercial packages
> in terms of photorealism.   I then gave some examples, and suggestions for
> how we can get Pov-Ray back into a competition with these packages.

No, you gave a few links to images.  Real examples demonstrating your 
claim would require explanation what technique they demonstrate, why 
this is realistic and why there is no way to achieve the same effect in 
POV-Ray.  Of course this would require some actual in-depth knowledge of 
POV-Ray.  Note i am not saying it is impossible to find such techniques 
but with your superficial way of looking at things you won't have much 
chance.

You can easily find examples for car paint, fur, bloom or anisotropic 
highlights that look at least as realistic as the images you showed by 
searching p.b.i.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message