> I am a purist at heart and hate image_maps so I feel the site should only
> contain procedural textures.

how is it that procedural textures are more 'pure' than imagemaps? 
aren't they both art?  isn't the idea to make the best image as
possible?  why is a limited toolbox better than a full one?  do
mechanics try to fix cars with only cresent wrenches?  do carpenters
only use hammers and saws?  even ancient woodworkers had a multitude of
tools to choose from.  should painters only use oil paints?  should
sculpters only use marble?  i love povray and i love procedural
textures, but i don't appreciate 'holier than thou' attitudes about the
way a 3d image should be made.  pov vs expensive package, procedural vs
nonprocedural, hand scripted vs modeled; it's all a bunch of nonsense. 
certainly, when someone makes a superior image based only on hand coded
script and procedural textures, praise is well earned.  however, you may
have noticed, this rarely happens.  the best images from pov have come
from those artists like gilles tran and h.e. day who have as many tools
as they can get their hands on and have learned when and when not to use
them.  and what about professionals?  have they all gone to the 'dark
side' because they use tools other than pov?  are their images worth
less than an advanced pov image?  i don't think so.  of course, you (and
many readers here) may disagree, but i wanted to get my opinion out
there.

Post a reply to this message

Hey hoo,

Nice with some comments, as long as it doesn't develop into a "war", and
so far it hasn't.  :o}  I like the way you expressed your thoughts Ryan.
Personally I am wether a fan of imagemaps or procedural textures, I'm
sort of neutral.

BUT I try to understand why these questions arise in the first place. I
think, the thing we must understand here, is that artists want praise
for their "work". They don't want, or deserve, praise for something they
didn't work for... With imagemaps, no one knows how much work has gone
into the picture, the final raytracing, and how much praise it deserves.
That's why some of us don't want to use imagemaps. It's frustrating,
when people can't find out how to credit our work.

But I'm afraid it's an illusion to think, procedural textures are safer
to use.. They don't necessarely show the truth either; the truth about
the amount of work behind the picture. A lame POV-user can grap and use
whatever procedural texture he finds...


Hugo

Post a reply to this message

"Ryan Constantine" <rcc### [at] ucdavisedu> wrote in message
news:3A82D6C5.5905212B@ucdavis.edu...
> > I am a purist at heart and hate image_maps so I feel the site should
only
> > contain procedural textures.
> how is it that procedural textures are more 'pure' than imagemaps?
> aren't they both art?  isn't the idea to make the best image as
> possible?  why is a limited toolbox better than a full one?  do
> mechanics try to fix cars with only cresent wrenches?

  Nope, but they also can't say they rebuilt an engine if they ordered it
ready to drop in the car..

> do carpenters
> only use hammers and saws?

  Nope, but if they bought a kit that contained the entire deck precut to
length and ready to hammer, its not the same work of art it'd be if they did
it themselves.. :-)

>  even ancient woodworkers had a multitude of
> tools to choose from.  should painters only use oil paints?  should
> sculpters only use marble?  i love povray and i love procedural
> textures, but i don't appreciate 'holier than thou' attitudes about the
> way a 3d image should be made.

  Its just two different worlds.  If you compare a photographers work with
that of someone doing an oil painting, one side would say the oil painting
required a whole lot more skill.  Just depends on how you look at it.  They
both have the capacity to create very moving and awe inspiring work, but
they are different worlds.

> pov vs expensive package, procedural vs
> nonprocedural, hand scripted vs modeled; it's all a bunch of nonsense.

  And the painter would say that the photographer has it easy, and vice
versa..  :-)

> certainly, when someone makes a superior image based only on hand coded
> script and procedural textures, praise is well earned.  however, you may
> have noticed, this rarely happens.  the best images from pov have come
> from those artists like gilles tran and h.e. day who have as many tools
> as they can get their hands on and have learned when and when not to use
> them.  and what about professionals?  have they all gone to the 'dark
> side' because they use tools other than pov?  are their images worth
> less than an advanced pov image?  i don't think so.  of course, you (and
> many readers here) may disagree, but i wanted to get my opinion out
> there.

  Everyone has an opinion.  I think that the art created from any method is
well worth it, but some artists look at others differently.  One who creates
a procedural method likes his way, and another who breaks out a paint
program and creates a corresponding bump map/image map combo likes it his
way.  Both can turn out just as nicely.

Post a reply to this message

>   Its just two different worlds.  If you compare a photographers work with
> that of someone doing an oil painting, one side would say the oil painting
> required a whole lot more skill.  Just depends on how you look at it.  They
> both have the capacity to create very moving and awe inspiring work, but
> they are different worlds.

both you and hugo hit the mark.  there isn't a better, and people who
favor a method over another shouldn't look down on the other.  i'm glad
the responses to my post weren't war-like, since that wasn't what i
wanted to start.

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote:
> 
> Hey hoo,
> 
> Nice with some comments, as long as it doesn't develop into a "war", and
> so far it hasn't.  :o}  I like the way you expressed your thoughts Ryan.
> Personally I am wether a fan of imagemaps or procedural textures, I'm
> sort of neutral.
> 
> BUT I try to understand why these questions arise in the first place. I
> think, the thing we must understand here, is that artists want praise
> for their "work". They don't want, or deserve, praise for something they
> didn't work for... With imagemaps, no one knows how much work has gone
> into the picture, the final raytracing, and how much praise it deserves.
> That's why some of us don't want to use imagemaps. It's frustrating,
> when people can't find out how to credit our work.
> 
> But I'm afraid it's an illusion to think, procedural textures are safer
> to use.. They don't necessarely show the truth either; the truth about
> the amount of work behind the picture. A lame POV-user can grap and use
> whatever procedural texture he finds...
> 
> Hugo

right.  one thing i think people forget is where image maps can come
from.  if you have a scanner and/or digital camera you can take pictures
and use those as image maps (this is the kind i assume aren't liked?). 
leaves are a good candidate for this.  one can also paint their own from
scratch.  if anyone has ever tried that, it's pretty hard.  i'm
currently trying to do it for one of my models.  another way to do image
maps is to make a prodedural texture, make the image, and then use it in
another image as an image map.  for those of you who remember my r2d2 a
few months back, you may recall that i originally made r2d2's head one
giant procedural texture.  it was giant because it was accurate, not
some made up blue and silver sections that some other people have made. 
the texture alone was over 2000 lines of code.  i couldn't have done it
without moray.  i then used a megapov spherical camera inside a hollow
r2d2 head to get an image map i could spherically map to my real model's
head instead of using the procedural texture.  why?  multiple layers of
specularity if i remember correctly.  my texture was many layers thick. 
most of each layer was transparent.  i thought this would mean that i
could make it so only the colored areas would be shiny on each layer. 
but that's not how it worked.  the layers added together so that the
bottom layer looked really shiny and the top layer wasn't.  i'm sure
there were posts about it during that time. in fact, i'm positive i had
asked any pov programmers to look into pattern based specualrity (i.e.
my r2d2 used patterns where most entries were clear, and only some had
color.  it would be nice to make the clear part not shiny). my only
solution was to 'flatten' my texture to one layer which was impossible
procedurally.  so i rendered a 4000 by 4000 image and then wrapped it on
r2d2's head.  then i gave him the proper shininess and even used it as a
bumpmap.  the original 2000 line texture is available at the moray site
for those who are curious.  it shows how one can get precise texture
geometry on some shapes.  organic shapes are another story, and i won't
get into that right now.

Post a reply to this message

Ryan Constantine wrote:

> >   Its just two different worlds.  If you compare a photographers work with
> > that of someone doing an oil painting, one side would say the oil painting
> > required a whole lot more skill.  Just depends on how you look at it.  They
> > both have the capacity to create very moving and awe inspiring work, but
> > they are different worlds.
>
> both you and hugo hit the mark.  there isn't a better, and people who
> favor a method over another shouldn't look down on the other.  i'm glad
> the responses to my post weren't war-like, since that wasn't what i
> wanted to start.

AAAARRRGGHHH!

My goodness,  I didn't meen to start a war.  I was only trying to indicate that
I felt there are already many sources of image map pictures out there in any
format you could possibly want.  However I have had no such joy in finding large
sources of procedural textures.  This was the idea behind my site.

Personally I use both but prefer procedural textures.  I think they show higher
skill (but this is ONLY my opinion).  Image maps are useful when you have little
time or want to model an extremely complex texture.  However I am explicitly
looking to create a site for new users (and more experienced ones if they like -
no discrimination) to learn about procedural textures as this is the part of
creating scenes that I find the hardest.  Several tutorials exist on the web but
that is no use if you want ideas on how to texture a [insert object of your
choice].

If enough people feel strongly enough about it I will add a section to my site
containing image maps - they are a valid tool in POV-Ray so I don't see why they
shouldn't be used.

LOL
Duncan Adamson
dja### [at] docicacuk

PS: I think this could be a valuable resource and people so far have given good
responses so could you start sending me anything that you are proud of or want
to show off (procedural or otherwise) and I will be pleased to get the site up
and running.

PPS If you do send a texture I will only be too pleased to place a link to your
home page if provided

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A82D6C5.5905212B@ucdavis.edu>, Ryan Constantine 
<rcc### [at] ucdavisedu> wrote:

>> I am a purist at heart and hate image_maps so I feel the site should only
>> contain procedural textures.
>
>how is it that procedural textures are more 'pure' than imagemaps? 

In my case, I always prefer procedural textures to imagemaps *if* the 
imagemaps are not straight lines. This is because procedural textures 
can be resized with less distortion than imagemaps, and I tend to render 
my images at many sizes. In the sense that with a procedural texture I 
do not have to worry later on if I blow up the rendering, procedural 
textures are "more pure".

>aren't they both art?  isn't the idea to make the best image as
>possible?  why is a limited toolbox better than a full one?  do
>mechanics try to fix cars with only cresent wrenches?

I think the better example would be, do mechanics keep both a fixed-size 
crescent wrench set and an adjustable crescent wrench in their toolbox? 
In some cases, a mechanic might not be able to afford a crescent wrench 
for all sizes, just as we cannot always find a procedural texture that 
does the same thing as an imagemap. But if we can find the 
correctly-sized fixed crescent wrench (the procedural texture that does 
the same thing as the imagemap), it is clearly the better choice.

Jerry
-- 
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)

Post a reply to this message

"Jerry" <jer### [at] acusdedu> wrote in message
news:jerry-861E93.09020709022001@news.povray.org...

> does the same thing as an imagemap. But if we can find the
> correctly-sized fixed crescent wrench (the procedural texture that does
> the same thing as the imagemap), it is clearly the better choice.
>

Hmm, I would have added a IMHO to that. I think it's purely a matter of
taste and intent. That said, there are very good arguements to not having
image-map based textures on the site, including the obvious that there are
many sites already fulfilling this need.

Funnily enough, when I started reading your analogy, I thought it was going
to go the other way - adjustable wrench = procedural, fixed = image map.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a84291b@news.povray.org>, "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> 
wrote:
>Hmm, I would have added a IMHO to that. I think it's purely a matter of

I think that "In my case, I always prefer" pretty much covered that...

Jerry
-- 
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)

Post a reply to this message

"Duncan Adamson" <dja### [at] docicacuk> wrote in message
news:3A83D12D.F5653BEE@doc.ic.ac.uk...
> Ryan Constantine wrote:
> My goodness,  I didn't meen to start a war.  I was only trying to indicate
that
> I felt there are already many sources of image map pictures out there in
any
> format you could possibly want.  However I have had no such joy in finding
large
> sources of procedural textures.  This was the idea behind my site.

  Wasn't trying to war, simply trying to answer why some prefer one over
another.. :-)

> Personally I use both but prefer procedural textures.  I think they show
higher
> skill (but this is ONLY my opinion).  Image maps are useful when you have
little
> time or want to model an extremely complex texture.  However I am
explicitly
> looking to create a site for new users (and more experienced ones if they
like -
> no discrimination) to learn about procedural textures as this is the part
of
> creating scenes that I find the hardest.  Several tutorials exist on the
web but
> that is no use if you want ideas on how to texture a [insert object of
your
> choice].

  Depends on how you create it.  Some of the best textures I've ever seen
whilst lurking are usually a imagemap/bumpmap combo, which they do from
scratch.

> If enough people feel strongly enough about it I will add a section to my
site
> containing image maps - they are a valid tool in POV-Ray so I don't see
why they
> shouldn't be used.

    Depends on what kind of site you want, really.  If you want a popular,
all around good resource for textures, then yes, you should have both.  Yer
sight, ta heck with what others think.. :-)  But it'd be more popular if
it's method agnostic I'd think..

Post a reply to this message