 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:33:59 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>> This is a pretty poor example: Wedding guests don't remember a dinner
>>> based on how much /effort/ it took - they remember it based on how
>>> /extraordinary/ it was (which I'd file as "concept").
>>
>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>> extraordinary.
>
> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>
> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
> because only few people actually /do/ it.
OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> clipka wrote:
>> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical
>> merit is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible these
>> days?"
>>
> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
> photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera and
> shoot.
And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for an
AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
something like this, for instance:
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
Yes, to me the ultimate goal in 3D rendering /is/ photorealism - to
depict things that /are not/ real, in a way that they look /as if/ they
were real.
(And while wrist watches do not fit this category, as you can indeed go
and photograph one, I still consider even those valid subjects for
raytracing: To learn how to make non-real things look real, you first
need to learn how to make real things look real.)
> To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in the
> service of the concept and art?". If the concept calls for a comics
> look, then the image will never be "convincing" no matter how good the
> technical realisation. For example (okay, it's an animation, but the
> principle is the same):
>
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_July-October2000_earlyfly.mpg
I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thus
a totally wrong concept for the competition).
If I want stuff like that, I probably try for a 2D toon animation
package, not a 3D render software. The clip doesn't really make much use
of any 3D features.
See the difference here?
You can render a non-real thing and make it look like a comic, but in
that case you could just as well pick a 2D software and have a go at it
- or even get out the good old ink and colors. You can render that same
thing to look like an oil painting, but in that case you could just as
well pick some brushes and have a go at it. You can render it in a way
that it looks like an ink sketch, but in that case you can indeed just
draw it with inks.
But make a non-real thing /look/ like a photograph, and you may /not/ be
able to produce that shot any other way.
Therefore, the "native" style for 3D rendering /must/ be photorealism -
not only because that's what it was invented for in the first place, but
also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be
achieved in other ways.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>>> extraordinary.
>> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>>
>> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
>> because only few people actually /do/ it.
>
> OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
Of course.
As soon as everyone uses HDRI based lighting, I'll consider it nothing
special.
Until then, I stick to considering HDRI based lighting worthy of a high
technical bonus, even if it is darn easy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:15:40 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>>> Arguably, if everyone can make something, then it's ordinary, not
>>>> extraordinary.
>>> Remember Columbus and his egg?
>>>
>>> Sometimes doing things that everyone /can/ do is still extraordinary,
>>> because only few people actually /do/ it.
>>
>> OK, then things that everyone "has done". ;-)
>
> Of course.
>
> As soon as everyone uses HDRI based lighting, I'll consider it nothing
> special.
>
> Until then, I stick to considering HDRI based lighting worthy of a high
> technical bonus, even if it is darn easy.
*sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <sha### [at] none none> wrote in message news:4ab997ac$1@news.povray.org...
> Tek wrote:
>
> > However, on that subject, I sometimes have some difficulty
> distinguishing between technical and artistic areas. e.g. is bad lighting
> a technical or artistic failure?
> >
>
> Lighting is IMO an artistic issue. At least one of the most famous IRTC
> images was rendered using rad settings pulled right out of the newsgroups.
> And anyone can paste his model into an hdri scene. Using these elements
> effectively is a challenge, but not a technical one.
>
An interesting point, though I'm not talking about good lighting, I'm
talking about bad lighting. A technical failure can make a mess of the
lighting in a scene as much as an artistic one. I don't want to point out
specific examples, but there are scenes where the lighting is very washed
out and flat, which could be a case of not knowing what gamma space to
render in (surely a technical issue) or that you should disable ambient
light in a dark scene (kind of half way between technical and artistic).
I've seen people with a lot of artistic talent compensate very effectively
for such technical oversights, but when I'm presented with an image where
the lighting just looks bad, I don't know whether it's a failure to see that
it looks bad (artistic) or a failure to know what to do about it
(technical).
Anyway, thanks for the very interesting reply. In general I agree with you,
though I tend to focus more on aesthetics for artistic score and count
things like humour and story-telling as part of the concept score.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> *sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
>
> Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
>
> Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
No, actually not :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:12:29 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>> *sigh*. Apparently I'm not being precise enough, so let me try again.
>>
>> Anything trivial that most everyone has done.
>>
>> Better? Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?
>
> No, actually not :-)
OK, I'll try again.
Take something that anybody can do. And that many/most people have
done. Like making Chex Mix. You take a bunch of pre-fabricated things
and throw them into a bowl. Done. Doesn't take a lot of time, doesn't
take a lot of imagination, and doesn't take a lot of effort.
It doesn't take a lot of brains or "figuring stuff out" to do. It's
easy, almost trivial. But of equal importance, it's not inherently
obvious to the audience, at least not until it's demonstrated.
Now, you refer to the Columbus Egg story - but actually, that's not
related to technical merit, but to creativity. That was a creative
solution to the problem, but that doesn't have anything to do with the
fact that it technically is simple.
Columbus and his egg would rate highly on the creativity scale, but not
on the technical merit scale.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
>photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera
>and shoot. To me, technical merit is "how well was technique used in
>the service of the concept and art?".
I agree with you and after having a discussion on another CG forum I've decided
to consider "technical" as how much "work" is involved making the scene.
Comparing it to the physical side of painting like mixing the paints, brushwork
and other things with creating the textures, models hard sums etc.
Although photorealism has been considered the goal of PovRay it is not for me.
If I can make an image of something I see in my mind I am very happy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: Rebirth round open for voting
Date: 25 Sep 2009 15:21:13
Message: <4abd1829@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>> clipka wrote:
>>> So to me, one (though not the only) guiding question for technical
>>> merit is, "does the scene look as /convincing/ as it is possible
>>> these days?"
>>>
>> I disagree. This assumes that the be all, end all of raytracing is
>> photorealism. It isn't. If I want a photo, I'll just take my camera
>> and shoot.
>
> And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for a
n
> AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
> something like this, for instance:
>
> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
>
Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar
to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines
and with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look
at the special effects of films from before the CG era!)
> >
> http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=Animations_Ju
ly-October2000_earlyfly.mpg
>
>
> I would actually consider this a totally wrong choice of tools (and thu
s
> a totally wrong concept for the competition).
>
> If I want stuff like that, I probably try for a 2D toon animation
> package, not a 3D render software. The clip doesn't really make much us
e
> of any 3D features.
>
Actually, it uses a lot of 3D features but in a very subtle way.
Doing small movements not parallel to the image plane is nearly
impossible in a 2D toon animation package (in practice if not in
theory) because they require completely redrawing *everything* at
each frame. Yet those kind of movements add a lot to the feel of the
animation.
>
> See the difference here?
>
> You can render a non-real thing and make it look like a comic, but in
> that case you could just as well pick a 2D software and have a go at it
> - or even get out the good old ink and colors. You can render that same
> thing to look like an oil painting, but in that case you could just as
> well pick some brushes and have a go at it. You can render it in a way
> that it looks like an ink sketch, but in that case you can indeed just
> draw it with inks.
>
> But make a non-real thing /look/ like a photograph, and you may /not/ b
e
> able to produce that shot any other way.
>
> Therefore, the "native" style for 3D rendering /must/ be photorealism -
> not only because that's what it was invented for in the first place, bu
t
> also because depicting non-real things in any other style can be
> achieved in other ways.
Then look at this image by the same author:
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_Nov
ember-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg
It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how
would you do it without 3D rendering?
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And that's where I do disagree with you. Sure, the argument works for
>> an AWSOME ROLEX; but try taking your camera for a walk and shooting
>> something like this, for instance:
>>
>> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index240.html
>>
> Is is actually possible with a little work to make a photo similar
> to what you're showing here. Just take a couple of plastic figurines and
> with a little bit of work you can get anything. (Hell, just look at the
> special effects of films from before the CG era!)
That may well be; still, it it will be a /hell/ lot of more effort,
especially if you intend to make it look realistic indeed. And you can
do a lot of faking in movies by giving the viewer no time to look at all
the details.
Here's another one that will give you difficulty to reproduce with your
digicam:
http://www.oyonale.com/image.php?code=319&mode=info§ion=2003&lang=en
> Then look at this image by the same author:
>
http://www.irtc.org/irtc/irtc?_n&pg=ViewSubmission&id=StillImages_November-December1998_ac5Fvs5Feb.jpg
>
>
> It doesn't look like a photograph and it doesn't try to. But how
> would you do it without 3D rendering?
That's something I'm much more willing to accept in a 3D rendering contest.
Still, it does not make me go "whoa! this is the high art of 3D
rendering" - except for the volumetric effects. (It actually happens to
be a style invented by CG animation studios to avoid the "uncanny valley".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
