Hello!
    I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
graphical interfase and pov doesn't.

    Best Regards
    Luciano Pennini

Post a reply to this message

From what I learnt reading material here and there (no direct experience),
it seems that the main difference is that commercial packages are usually
not ray-tracers. They use faster rendering algorithms and use ray-tracing
only when it's necessary. Therefore they seem to have much shorter rendering
times. Other differences I can think of :
They rely on meshes and not on 3D primitives, which permits non-linear
transformations (POV of course also supports meshes so it's possible to do
so, see the Warp/Colefax mesh macros).
They seem to rely on lots of optimizations and "tricks" of all sorts, and
may have if not better-looking, or at least faster ways to do things that
are long to tune and render in POV (like volumetrics or soft shadows).
They have built-in animation capabilities, while animation in POV is
basically scripting the changes between frames and then reparsing each
frame.

G.


Luciano Pennini wrote:

> Hello!
>     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> graphical interfase and pov doesn't.
>
>     Best Regards
>     Luciano Pennini

Post a reply to this message

Luciano Pennini wrote:

> Hello!
>     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> graphical interfase and pov doesn't.

	I'll second Mr. Tran. Clever tricks instead of the real thing.
As an obvious point, the next time you see a CG movie or the CG
parts of a movie pay attention to the shadows and you will see
the real difference. 

	And then of course there is price not only for the software but
for an overpriced workstation named after a gemstone. The
intermediate stuff is neither POV nor movie look and feel but
their own look and feel. 

-- 
<blink>---please--don't---</blink>

http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/

Oh my God! They've rendered Kenny!

Post a reply to this message

Yes I'd have to agree.  Most high-end commercial packages are aimed at speed
(for obvious reasons) and use scan line in combination with post processing
or selected raytracing.

I think in a lot of cases what you're really paying the huge money for with
things like Maya, Lightwave and MAX are the GUIs (which are incredibly
important to commercial workers).

In terms of final rendering quality I think that POV-Ray matches, if not
beats the output of a lot of commercial renderers.  I think in the end it
really comes down to the artist's ability to use the program effectively.
(which is the reason that the ever-talented Gilles Tran can produce images
that are of incredible quality and beauty :)

--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:38359AE2.DD9733BA@inapg.inra.fr...
> From what I learnt reading material here and there (no direct experience),
> it seems that the main difference is that commercial packages are usually
> not ray-tracers. They use faster rendering algorithms and use ray-tracing
> only when it's necessary. Therefore they seem to have much shorter
rendering
> times. Other differences I can think of :
> They rely on meshes and not on 3D primitives, which permits non-linear
> transformations (POV of course also supports meshes so it's possible to do
> so, see the Warp/Colefax mesh macros).
> They seem to rely on lots of optimizations and "tricks" of all sorts, and
> may have if not better-looking, or at least faster ways to do things that
> are long to tune and render in POV (like volumetrics or soft shadows).
> They have built-in animation capabilities, while animation in POV is
> basically scripting the changes between frames and then reparsing each
> frame.
>
> G.
>
>
> Luciano Pennini wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> > and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> > renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> > graphical interfase and pov doesn't.
> >
> >     Best Regards
> >     Luciano Pennini
>

Post a reply to this message

I third the motion about what Gilles T. said, and add the viewpoint that
POV-Ray has a lot going for it if you can manage to gather the widely (yet
much better linked now thanks to you know who) available resources out there
for gaining more useability and not break your budget down like the bells
and whistles of commercial programs are apt to do.

Bob

Matt Giwer <mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> wrote in message
news:38364946.E04AE4FA@giwersworld.org...
> Luciano Pennini wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> > and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> > renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> > graphical interfase and pov doesn't.
>
> I'll second Mr. Tran. Clever tricks instead of the real thing.
> As an obvious point, the next time you see a CG movie or the CG
> parts of a movie pay attention to the shadows and you will see
> the real difference.
>
> And then of course there is price not only for the software but
> for an overpriced workstation named after a gemstone. The
> intermediate stuff is neither POV nor movie look and feel but
> their own look and feel.
>
> --
> <blink>---please--don't---</blink>
>
> http://www.giwersworld.org/artiii/
>
> Oh my God! They've rendered Kenny!

Post a reply to this message

The rendering capabilities of POV are often on par with commercial ones. Indeed,
it has several renderer-related features that many commercial packages do not.
And it is very flexible.
The real advantage of commercial packages is integration and productivity. You
can create a reasonable-quality image far quicker with commercial packages,
which is imperative in a professional environment. POV is not well suited for
most commercial applications, especially when it comes to complex animations. I
must say though that most current limitations are related to modelling, not
image quality. If a high-end modeller would have (full) POV support, the result
should be quite lucrative to professional users. Although rendering speed would
probably not be very competitive.

Margus

Luciano Pennini wrote:
> 
> Hello!
>     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> graphical interfase and pov doesn't.
> 
>     Best Regards
>     Luciano Pennini

Post a reply to this message

Very well put. I second this. Long live POV!

Post a reply to this message

Luciano Pennini wrote:

> Hello!
>     I'd like to know if anybody can point me the differences between pov
> and comercial packages like 3ds, softimage, etc.  I'm talking 'bout the
> renderer capabilities, not the fact that the other programs have a
> graphical interfase and pov doesn't.

I have found that investing in a modelling program like Rhino3D
(www.rhino3d.com) can allow POV to rival commercial products on almost all
levels.

POV is an excellent renderer, nicer than most of the commercial products
(except for radiosity). It excells at procedural texturing while most of the
commercial products rely on texturemapping. If done right, it can look much
nicer.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
: They rely on meshes and not on 3D primitives, which permits non-linear
: transformations

  If we speak absolutely strictly, they don't. A true non-linear
transformation of a mesh would bend the triangles, not only move the
vertices. Usually the triangles are so small (and they are phong-shaded
or whatever) that it doesn't matter, though.
  The only way that I can think to approximate a true non-linear
transformation with big triangles would be splitting the triangle into
smaller ones and moving their vertices. Still, it isn't "true" non-linear
transformation, only an approximation :)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message