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

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
....
> However, let me argue that case for a moment. Why would you use
> raytracing if you're not after photorealism?

I, too, love working SDL style.  I particularly enjoy seeing what can be
made from CSG, the whole process of going from idea to mathematical
expression to image. I imagine that it's not too much different than the
enjoyment that some other folks get from building a ship in a bottle.  The
process is at least as important as the product.
....
> The main advantage of raytracing over other forms of 3D rendering *is*
> photorealism. It can create realistic shadows, reflections, and global
> illumination.

The same capabilities that allow for high levels of realism allow for a much
wider selection of creative techniques than the alternative methods.  An
artist can specify more or less of a given optical phenomenon than the
level that would be the most realistic in order to achieve a variety of
effects. To be succinct, the same tools that make possible photo-realism
make possible many other things as well.  Also, for anyone who may be
joining this discussion in the middle, I should like to point out that I
have NEVER argued that photo-realism isn't a valid format for artistic
expression, only against the ASSUMPTION that it is MORE valid than other
forms.

To Tek et al:
Thank you for your concern, but I was not in the least offended, as I fully
realized that all the comments were contributed with the intent of being
helpful and appreciated them as such.  As a matter of fact, I chose to
bring up the issue, which had been on my mind for quite some time, in this
place and time specifically because I saw it as an opportunity to discuss
the matter in the context of a civil discourse with people whom I respect.
I believe that ray tracing is in the process of "coming of age" as a true
art form and that, like any art from, its full potential can best be
realized if ALL of its possibilities are explored.

Best Regards to All,
-Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy wrote:

> 
> It can create realistic shadows, reflections, and global 
> illumination.
> 

These are light effects not photo effects.  You do not need a photograph 
to perceive shadows, reflections and global illumination.

Meanwhile, these and other phenomena as recorded by a camera are still 
only a partial "realism"  A photo is just a particular recording of 
reality, a partial slice if you will.

It is quite valid to both reject photolike effects as the "gold 
standard" for realism and at the same time utilize the tools provided in 
a raytracer to create a personal and alternative sense of what's real.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> These are light effects not photo effects.  You do not need a photograph
> to perceive shadows, reflections and global illumination.
>
> Meanwhile, these and other phenomena as recorded by a camera are still
> only a partial "realism"  A photo is just a particular recording of
> reality, a partial slice if you will.

Quite. Real 'photorealism' should address the imperfections of the camera
such as barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, over/under exposure, lens
flare, colour bleeding, motion blur, field of view and even the location of
the photographer. I am reminded of Tek's incredible IRTC entry last year
with the fire on the beach.

But there's plenty of amazing things one can do with a raytracer that aren't
possible with a camera. If I could take a picture of it, I don't need to
ray-trace it :-)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:

> However, let me argue that case for a moment. Why would you use
> raytracing if you're not after photorealism?

For me it is laziness. I found PovRay when it was mentioned in the Fractint
documentation. Then I found these newsgroups and the good people here made
me stay. I would probably be better off with a scanline renderer but I like
the company.

Post a reply to this message

General:
I'm guessing topic is a hangup for people, because several recent posts
to p.b.i. are more visually exciting than most of the images here.
Artists who get excited about their subjects *find* a way to make great
looking images. Search the p.b.i. group for non-photoreal images from
Alex Kluchikov or Veijo Vilva for examples of this.



"But which came first?" by David Lewis
A chain-smoking hen contemplates the nature of her existence. The models
and textures are crude (straws look like cigarettes to me), though you
did nail the expression on the chicken's face. The premise does work,
but it's a very tired premise. Maybe I just have no appreciation for the
classics?

"Mild nudity" by Bill Pragnell
I guess the "retro 90s" impression I had of your last entry might very
well have been intentional, because this is a nice looking render. Boring.

"The Passing Away" by Malcolm Findlay
You use some lyrical language in your topic description. This of course
helps get people to pay attention to what you have to say. Pictures are
no different. This topic may resonate with you, but artists have used
the topic ..well... to death. A LOT of lyricism would be necessary to
draw attention to your rendering of such an overused topic.

"yarsocp" by Tek
The most photo-realistic image and best looking marble I recall having
seen from POV-Ray.

"Aging" by William Tracy
The few things in the image are modeled and rendered well. Attractive
and not boring. There is something to be said for a presentation that
doesn't even try to be dramatic. Or, given your topic description, tries
and fails so miserably that the effort isn't even evident (a small
joke). I would suggest searching the p.b.images group for Jim Charter's
shoe and African mask studies.

"First cup" by Mike C
A good amount of details. As others have said, not especially visually
stimulating, but not boring either. The scene definitely does what it
was meant to do.

"Reganomics" by Brian Price
I don't know if it's the scene itself of that it's set in the 80s, but
the (as Tek put it) "naive CG" look works for the image on the right.
For that matter, it doesn't really fail for the image on the left. This
gets your point across, but it's a common political statement and put
very bluntly.

"A Time of Change" by Thomas de Groot
The bad isn't nearly as bad as the good is good, but it's a shame the
good has to share the picture with the less stellar elements. Nice
storytelling and a nice story. You have established identities for the
plane checker and "conformist", even after so few appearances.

"This to that" by Steve Paget
Can't help it. I'm a lot more interested in seeing what's in the photo
of your real workshop than in seeing the render. Nice models, though. A
diamond in the semi-rough? Still waiting for the appearance of your
bizarre ideas like Slotty into the Challenge.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Okay, you guys win. :-)

-- 
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're quite happy to let 
people think you're on a mission to enlighten the world - in other 
words; you've stopped trying to explain what "global illumination" is.
Alex McLeod a.k.a. Giant Robot Messiah

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <shay@s.s> wrote in message news:4641e787$1@news.povray.org...


> Can't help it. I'm a lot more interested in seeing what's in the photo
> of your real workshop than in seeing the render.

  Yeah, well, I kind of knew that...   ;)


Nice models, though. A
> diamond in the semi-rough?

   Full-rough, actually. Although, I would have to confess that getting as 
many 'near-complete' octahedrons as this, would be almost impossible. I have 
four rough diamonds with me now, and only one is based on an octahedron, but 
with many flaws along some edges, giving it a more rounder appearance on 
some corners. I tried this in the image, but I didn't try enough.


Still waiting for the appearance of your
> bizarre ideas like Slotty into the Challenge.

    Bizarre idea's?? Moi?? You've seen Slotty then. :)  That was a quick and 
dirty sphere, indeed! I should return to it, it was fun to do.

    BUT, if you meant for me to introduce more challenges in the TC-RTC, 
then yes, this is planned. At the moment, I just want to take it steady and 
see how it goes with what's happening now.

    ~Steve~


>
> -Shay

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>     Bizarre idea's?? Moi?? You've seen Slotty then. :)

You asked in my "...geeks only?" thread in p.b.i. if I had seen your
cgsphere stuff. I took a look and eventually replied, but it was after I
had been away at work, so you may not have seen the reply.


>     BUT, if you meant for me to introduce more challenges in the TC-RTC, 
> then yes, this is planned.

I was talking about crazy images.

As far as the TC-RTC goes, everything looks great. I was past time for
someone interested (and accessible!) to take the reins. Run with it, man!

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Something in this discussion just reminded me of a great example of 
non-photoreal CG. Have you guys seen Pocoyo?
http://www.pocoyo.com/

They've got radiosity that looks better than almost anything and yet they 
have no pretense of photorealism. Very cool stuff. Also Stephen Fry doing 
voice over! :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"William Tracy" <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote in message 
news:46421daf@news.povray.org...
> Okay, you guys win. :-)
>
> -- 
> 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're quite happy to let 
> people think you're on a mission to enlighten the world - in other words; 
> you've stopped trying to explain what "global illumination" is.
> Alex McLeod a.k.a. Giant Robot Messiah

Post a reply to this message