 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
[whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
(including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
either.
Anyone wants to comment?
Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree but (there are always a but)
if the purpose it to make picture which are not photorealistic it is not
necessary to add functionnality to software like Povray (I mean caustic,
radiosity,...). I think that it is necessary to try to improve all softwares to
be able to make photorealistic picture. This is a good research field (I am
researcher in physics and I appreciate the work make by the people who work in
this field). But after, you do what you want with this software, photorealistic
picture or not (and there I agree with you :) ).
Photorealistic means that this must look like a photo. But you can always say
that the scene occur in another world where, for example, the sun is pointlike,
in this way no area_light is needed. But one can add, in this world the water
is red and look like the wood of the earth etc... So ok but to be credible, a
scene must look like a scene which appear on earth with all the caracteristic
that we know, and this, even if you describe other world etc... Look the last
Star Wars. There some strange monster etc.. but all look very credible, very
realistic (even if I never see these monsters before :) ).
But to finish, I don't attack you :)! Every one make as he wants, and the
critics are made to progress. But I just means that one must try do a scene
like scene we see every day in the life to be credible. But you know I am a
scientist so I like perfectionism perhaps I need to be more poet sometime :).
But the purpose of my message was to test Povray, and I sure that one can make
spectacular good result with this software. This is why I post this message,
it's all.
But I don't agree with this
>Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist either.
Look on some university site or commercial site (like www.mental.com, this is
the site of mentalray). Or the link give by Gilles tran in the answer to my
post: look the pictures without read the comment and tell me which is the photo
and which is the render picture! me, ... well I cannot tell!
Fabian.
Simen Kvaal wrote:
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If on object looks 'too clean' etc. in Real Life, it is futile to argue that it
is not realistic - it is real, therefore it is inherently realistic.
In CG that argument does not apply. If it looks too clean and people know it to
be CG, they automatically find it to be unrealistic - a failed attempt at
photorealism. You can argue all you like, that's what people feel. So it is
better to exaggerate irregularity, impurity, imprecision - all the things that
are assumed to convey a 'natural' look.
Photorealism and the impression of photorealism are often not the same thing.
It's up to you to decide which you're after.
Margus
Simen Kvaal wrote:
>
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi!
I personally think that images should be pleasing to me; to the extent they
are not, maybe I can try to figure out why. One possible reason sometimes
is a lack of "realism" -- for me this usually doesn't mean that an object is
too clean but rather that it just looks wrong and that fact sticks out when
I look at an image -- interfering with my pleasure at viewing the image.
Unfortunately, what strikes me as "wrong" might not strike other people that
way.
My personal favorite thing about raytracing is that it offers the
possibility of "hyper-realism" -- the ability to show objects not just as
they actually are, but as they can be. So a detailed but
dirt-and-blemish-free picture of a telephone can be quite beautiful to me if
it communicates the "essence" of the telephone. Perhaps in another context
it may be more beautiful with scratches and dirty buttons. Even the dirt
has an essence that can be communicated with more or less "realism".
Things like photon maps and the caustics they can present are useful because
the caustics in an image of a glass of wine may be an important part of
communicating the essence of that wine glass, enhancing the beauty of the
image.
Using POV to do truly photorealistic images is a clear-cut and interesting
challenge, but aesthetically I'm not sure that duplicating one expressive
medium with another really takes advantage of the potential of that medium.
derek
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabian Brau wrote:
>.....
>if the purpose it to make picture which are not photorealistic it
>is not necessary to add functionnality to software like Povray (I
>mean caustic, radiosity,...).
I totally disagree with this, for making non-realistic work also
caustics, radiosity,...etc are needed and much more is needed.
I sometimes even think this urge for realism is a limitation for the
(creative) developpement of programms like pov-ray. Why not make this
"don't know what to call it" object / feature?
From a scientific point of view though, I can understand this interest
for realism.
Photo-realism: What is the realism in photography?
http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/blue/lightscapes/ilightscapes.html
This is some of my photography (the site is very unfinished)
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Derek Zahn <der### [at] uswest net> wrote :
>
> Using POV to do truly photorealistic images is a clear-cut and interesting
> challenge, but aesthetically I'm not sure that duplicating one expressive
> medium with another really takes advantage of the potential of that
medium.
>
My thoughts exactly. Although I appreciate the effort and the techniques
of those who do photorealistic work (and learn from it whenever I can),
I -have- a camera. I use POV to create images that a camera cannot take,
either because of the vantage point, or because the subject does not exist,
or both. (If I could get my "SpinningToroidalSingularity01.avi" to squeeze
under 1mb I could show you what I mean).
I also try to make all of my objects animation ready. If I wanted
something that could only be seen from a static viewpoint I could use a
paint program.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill the Galactic Hero wrote:
>
> (If I could get my "SpinningToroidalSingularity01.avi" to squeeze
> under 1mb I could show you what I mean).
>
Convert it to mpeg...
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simen Kvaal wrote:
>
> I was just thinking of this topic when I read the above "PovRay and
> reality"-thread. My angle is somewhat different.
>
> I see a general problem when people (in general) comment raytraced/CG
> imagery (for example renderings with PovRay.) Often you can see such
> comments as "the water looks too plastic" and "maybe add more randomness to
> [whatever]." "The shadows are too sharp" and so on. My point is that whay
> cannot real-life look like that? Go out in your evironment (no, ouside the
> computer) and take look at something. It's quite easy to find an objects
> that "don't look realistic" and if someone had rendered something looking
> like a photo taken of it, you would say: "you should make the surface less
> reflective" or "it's too perfect" or similar. That is, it is easy to forget
> that nature *itself* can look ... well unnatural.
>
> This post is not a *personal* attack on all the people who comment posings
> (including myself.) but merely an attempt to open out minds and not be
> perfectionists. Have in mind that 'realistic'-looking scenes don't exist
> either.
>
> Anyone wants to comment?
>
> Simen.
I agree totally.
Reality has many faces and making images is not about reality but about
perception.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerome M. BERGER <jbe### [at] enstfr> wrote :
>
> Convert it to mpeg...
>
It seems to loose a lot in the process. I will probably remake the
frames and try it from there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think you missed some of my point. It's easy to find a *real* scene when
rendered to look excactly alike, many would argue that it's not realistic
enough!
Simen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
