 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When you ask
> about voting, I want to ask you "Who's Hall of Fame is it?"
Good question, I don't know.
> I would hope the emphasis is on the
> individual image.
Same here. But if the Hall of Fame is strictly a Pov-Team thing
then I guess it's up to them...
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I too have been tempted by the dark side and have had a frivilous
relationship with it, but have recently returned to a more agreeable
piece of software, with one of its better properties being that it runs
under Linux. Its a shame because Lance seemed to have a natural aptitude
for POVray. Oh well.
G.
Ken wrote:
>
> Graham Redway wrote:
>
> > No Lance Birch?
>
> He still posts here but mainly restricts his activity to the off-topic
> group. He is one of those traitors who has gone over to the dark side
> and uses 3DS Max so that is really the only appropriate group for him
> now....
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>He is one of those traitors who has gone over to the dark side
>and uses 3DS Max so that is really the only appropriate group for him
>now...
He wants to get a job. POV is a hobby program. Max is a "professional"
program. If you want real money, you have to know how to use "professional"
programs. He just went with a big name he knows he can trust. For the rest
of us, there is POV. And besides, he never nocks it, he admits and knows
that POV is very good. I don't think I've ever seen him say otherwise.
Besides, is the dark side so evil after all? Thanks to the efforts of the
darksiders we have movies like Star Wars, and characters like Jar-Jar... OK,
OK, *bad* example...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It was meant as a friendly jest.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And only partially taken as such. I noticed my error only after writing the
first paragraph. That's why I tossed in a "joke" at the end. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What the! I almost missed this thread, glad I saw it now...
--
Lance
The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote:
> He wants to get a job. POV is a hobby program. Max is a "professional"
> program. If you want real money, you have to know how to use
"professional"
> programs. He just went with a big name he knows he can trust. For the rest
> of us, there is POV. And besides, he never nocks it, he admits and knows
> that POV is very good. I don't think I've ever seen him say otherwise.
Woohoo, I have someone at my defence! ;)
You're right in all points you made. I still love POV-Ray, it has a sheer
power in its rendering engine that MAX will never have (and it's free,
without it I wouldn't be doing the kind of graphics I am now).
--
Lance
The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Graham Redway wrote:
> under Linux. Its a shame because Lance seemed to have a natural aptitude
> for POVray. Oh well.
Gee, all these nice things being said about me! I better throw in some
MAX-lover comment soon or something... ;)
It's funny, when I mentioned that I started with POV-Ray to the two people I
work with at the moment they laughed at me, until I showed them how fast it
is at rendering reflections and refractions compared to MAX, then they just
stood there and said "so you mean you write *code* to make this thing
work???"
hehehe
Of course showing them Gilles Tran's work just blew them away. The
expressions on their faces were priceless really...
--
Lance
The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2000 22:09:04 -0400, John VanSickle
<van### [at] erols com> wrote:
>The criteria should be photorealism and artistic value. IRTC
>winners should be considered first, of course.
"Of course," you say?
That's nonsense, of course. IRTC winners are no more sacred than
anyone else. Placing special emphasis on a select group would be
unwise. Important works can easily be created outside the IRTC, or any
other similar group. Quality work should be recognized no matter where
it originates. Emphasizing one group of people - any group of people -
is unfair to everyone.
It seems that photorealism is one possible criterion, if only because
so many raytracing enthusiasts are trying to achieve it. However, it
certainly isn't required to produce a great work of art, or a valuable
rendering. In fact, when raytracing achieves *total* photorealism,
watch the value of photorealism drop into the gutter. It has it's
place, but it certainly isn't the only reason to value a work.
Artistic value is hard to define. Sort of like that old comment on
pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." The
trouble is, artistic value is totally in the eye of the beholder. So
how does one go about selecting the works with the best *intrinsic*
artistic value? Do we ask a large group of people to vote on which
works have the most artistic value?
Voting brings up the concept of popularity. All too often when a large
group of people choose something, it's based upon nothing more than
popularity. It's perhaps the easiest quality to measure, but perhaps
the least deserving of additional recognition.
You seem to have overlooked one other quality that is often mentioned
when trying to rationalize what to honor in a hall of fame: Images
that represent an important historical breakthrough. One example of
this might the image that Ron Parker created with his custom
motion-blur patch of POV-Ray. As far as I know, this was the first
motion-blurred image created strictly with POV-Ray and no external
utilities. I think it was also an IRTC winner. It's the one with
mousetraps and yellow balls flying everywhere.
I don't really have a conclusion for all this, other than to say that
intelligently picking candidates for a hall of fame isn't an easy
task. I feel it's too easy to stick to some over-simplified rules and
miss out on a real gem of an image, simply because it didn't fit into
someone else's notion of greatness.
As always, please view my comments as fuel for discussion, and not the
final word by any means.
Later,
Glen Berry
( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a little battle of the tracers going on in a
seperate group between Pov and Lightwave. I'm sort of
limited in what I can use to fight back because I was comparing
the difference between using image_maps for texture or using
pigments, normals etc.
They sent this(lightwave 6.0 btw).
http://www.tiac.net/users/pclute/oera_vw_rad.jpg
Honestly, I don't think the textures are that interesting. They're
pretty much plain colors. But it looks very believable.
I wonder though...with a tree macro, some media clouds...I don't
think this is unattainable with pov or megapov.
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
