Andreas Kreisig wrote:
 > Tom Melly wrote:
 >
 >
 >> So... what will Amapi allow me to do that I couldn't do with the
 >> SDL? (or at least not realistically).
 >
 >
 > I don't know Amapi (just tried it a view month ago) but generally a
 > modeler will allow you to make organic and / or realistic looking
 > objects. You can't do that with POV-Rays SDL. Most images posted at
 > p.b.i are nice, some are quite impressive, but none are really
 > realistic. In my opinion the SDL is not very well suited to build a
 > scene. Not worth mentioning that this is a very unnatural way to
 > create something. So if you just want to create some kind of
 > 'interesting' images, SDL is okay. If your goal is realism, you
 > should forget it. You mentioned to code realistic figures. There are
 > lot's of other things you can't really do with SDL.

I'm much more mathematically inclined than artistically, so I really
like positioning object by co-ordinates.  I cannot understand graphing
applications (even 2d ones) that don't allow that.  If it doesn't, how
can you make something as simple as a bullseye, where you need several
concentric circles with a common center?

-- 
Tom A.
"I've got the whole world
In my hands" - John, 3 year old Megalomaniac

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:

> in news:3e9efa16@news.povray.org Andreas Kreisig wrote:
> 
>> I don't know Amapi (just tried it a view month ago) but generally a
>> modeler will allow you to make organic and / or realistic looking
>> objects. You can't do that with POV-Rays SDL.
> 
> I have to disagree! Anything can be done in SDL, if you have the right
> macros and a lot of time. On the other hand the same can be said of
> doing something simple in SDL that turns out to be something complex
> with a modeller. There actually may be a reason for the fact that more
> and more GUI modellers also incorporate a scripting language.

In fact you really need a lot of time. But most images made with SDL are 
somewhat geometrical. Scripting languages in GUI modelers have been used to 
add modeling features or small tools. No one will use it to model something 
with it. Okay, sometimes SDL may be faster when the object you want to make 
is based on mathematical algorithms.

>> Most images posted at
>> p.b.i are nice, some are quite impressive, but none are really
>> realistic.
> 
> Please define realistic.

A view examples: with a lot of patience you can make something like a car, 
but you're not able to make a Porsche 911 or a VW Golf or whatever. You can 
make something like a bottle, but it's very hard to make a Jack Daniels 
bottle. You can try to make a human head but that's nearly impossible with 
SDL. Most SDL based images I saw in the past are rather simplyfied (anyway 
they're nice but that's not what I want to point out).

>> In my opinion the SDL is not very well suited to build a
>> scene. Not worth mentioning that this is a very unnatural way to
>> create something.
> 
> Yet again I have to disagree. SDL can be seen as a modelling language
> or as an intermediate format between a GUI and the raytracer. If you
> export your Maya models to POV-Ray, however "realistic" they are,
> you're still using SDL.

Yes, the informations will be stored into mesh2 format. From this point of 
view SDL is an interface like you mentioned it. But it's not very usefull 
when you want to use it as a modelling language (depending on what you want 
to do with it, of course).

> ps. I'm not advocating the pure use of SDL here, POV-Ray IMO is 'just' a
> tool to get a result. To get that result I may, or may not, use other
> tools. And realism is IMO not the holy grail of graphics, ever seen a
> negative light source in reality. No? Yet in POV-Ray you can use them.

You're right regarding realism. On the other side POV-Ray is an outstanding 
Raytracer (I really love it) wich is able to create photorealistic images, 
but most of the images made with it are ... chrome balls on checkered 
floors in all variations. Realism is not the holy grail but it's one of the 
most ambitious chalanges in CG. POV-Ray can do that but you can't reach it 
when you only use the SDL. You definitive need other tools.
Well, there're some people who can do fantastic things with SDL but they've 
years of experience and often third party tools. I'm too unpatient for that 
and bevor I waste my time to learn the SDL en detail to make some balls or 
cones I rather use Blender. :)

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message

in news:3e9f3175@news.povray.org Andreas Kreisig wrote:

> In fact you really need a lot of time. But most images made with SDL
> are somewhat geometrical. 

Have a look at the results you can achieve with TomTree or Stricia, 
nothing geometrical there.

>> Please define realistic.
> 
> [...] You can try to make a human head but
> that's nearly impossible with SDL. Most SDL based images I saw in the
> past are rather simplyfied (anyway they're nice but that's not what I
> want to point out). 

How many hours did it take DAZ to create Vicky? Does she look realistic?


Ingo

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:15:16 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>Well, my reference in 3D modelling is Rhino, which I have always found to be
>one of the most intuitive piece of software ever (among complex ones of
>course).

Ditto that. The curious thing is, Rhino started out as an AutoCAD
plug-in and this is evident everywhere. It has kept all of the AutoCAD
good points in terms of interface (command line, object snapping &
extending etc.) but has gone to a completely new level of useability
by introducing new and logical elements which AutoCAD has never had
and will probably never have (it's too darn conservative).

AutoCAD is still better for drawing and sketching, though, but of
course that's what it was intended to do in the first place. That's
why I always model in Rhino and export to AutoCAD for the engineering
drawing when I make some design (like my current loudspeaker-to-be).


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:04:12 +0200, Andreas Kreisig <and### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> A view examples: with a lot of patience you can make something like a car, 
> but you're not able to make a Porsche 911 or a VW Golf or whatever.

http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/19709/127888/MyCar.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30145/214068/recar3dc5.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/22626/156738/susp.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30945/220060/FORDTRCK.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/31112/221106/WALL.jpg

> You can 
> make something like a bottle, but it's very hard to make a Jack Daniels 
> bottle.

Have you seen kitchen images from JRG ?
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/21949/148872/spezie.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/22917/159099/forno.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/29029/205449/vaporeEfuoco.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/21145/141194/t_b.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/19254/124775/waxscatt.jpg

Have you seen images from Jaime ?
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/27109/191537/balanza-6.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/21968/149037/bolts.jpg
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/20868/138290/office.jpg

> Most SDL based images I saw in the past are rather simplyfied (anyway 
> they're nice but that's not what I want to point out).

Oh sure, I can make a scene like
http://10best.raytrace.com/short2/ks8_800.jpg
But I can also make something like
http://10best.raytrace.com/short2/ks9_800.jpg
http://10best.raytrace.com/short2/ks7_800.jpg
http://10best.raytrace.com/short/ks3_800.JPG
http://10best.raytrace.com/short/ks2_800.JPG
How many clicks will you use in modellers to duplicate these scenes? All those
were created with less than 500 characters.

As Ingo pointed out POV is just one of tools used to connect idea with result.
That's why it is so common to hear something like: "The body is done in Rhino.
The texture is done in POVray. The wheels are also done intirly in POVray." POV
can be used in scenes in many ways: as modeller, as raytracer, as texturing
tool, to create image_maps for other scenes. And as all in one.

> I'm too unpatient for that 
> and bevor I waste my time to learn the SDL en detail to make some balls or 
> cones I rather use Blender. :)

You have to understand that everything what modeller do is just some interactive
action to get input for algorithm performed over primitive objects and textures
to make some complexity which looks soft, organic etc. And as such this action
can be recreated in scripting language with necessary programing capabilities
and set of 3D functions to create primitives. The difference is that in modeller
everything is 'on-screen' in windows while in SDL everything is 'in-manual' and
'in-brain' ;-)

The most important thing which limits possibilities of POV-Ray output is user:
his knowledge, willingness, free time. But these are reality reasons and
therefore some users use modellers and some use pure SDL. And sometimes they
even cooperate exchenging content in some portable format like SDL or OBJ. And
some postprocess their work either as 3D data (in SDL or in modeller) or 2D
image output (in SDL or in image manipulation format).

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> AutoCAD is still better for drawing and sketching, though, but of
> course that's what it was intended to do in the first place. That's
> why I always model in Rhino and export to AutoCAD for the engineering
> drawing when I make some design (like my current loudspeaker-to-be).

C'mon Peter! If you have a couple of thousand hours to torture yourself,
Autocad can produce great 3D objects. Look what I accomplished with it 5
years ago -

http://jkuag.tripod.com/gallery/trumpet.jpg

:~)

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:00 +0200, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:04:12 +0200, Andreas Kreisig <and### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > A view examples: with a lot of patience you can make something like a car, 
> > but you're not able to make a Porsche 911 or a VW Golf or whatever.
>
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/19709/127888/MyCar.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30145/214068/recar3dc5.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/22626/156738/susp.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30945/220060/FORDTRCK.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/31112/221106/WALL.jpg

Oh, I forgot this site :-)

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/7241/Garage/tii_2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/7241/Garage/f37_2a.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/7241/Garage/t_1a.jpg

ABX

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:


>> A view examples: with a lot of patience you can make something like a
>> car, but you're not able to make a Porsche 911 or a VW Golf or whatever.
> 
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/19709/127888/MyCar.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30145/214068/recar3dc5.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/22626/156738/susp.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/30945/220060/FORDTRCK.jpg
> http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/31112/221106/WALL.jpg

That's exactly what I mean: this images shows something like a car, but no 
really car. When I write cars I mean something like this:

http://www.kk.iij4u.or.jp/~knight/images/gallery_image/enzo_re.jpg
http://www.ays-arts.de/gallery/lw7/mz6-01.jpg
http://www.simonreeves.co.uk/3d/rs6/rs6front.jpg

> As Ingo pointed out POV is just one of tools used to connect idea with
> result. That's why it is so common to hear something like: "The body is
> done in Rhino. The texture is done in POVray. The wheels are also done
> intirly in POVray." POV can be used in scenes in many ways: as modeller,
> as raytracer, as texturing tool, to create image_maps for other scenes.
> And as all in one.

Yes.

> You have to understand that everything what modeller do is just some
> interactive action to get input for algorithm performed over primitive
> objects and textures to make some complexity which looks soft, organic
> etc.

The difference is that a modeller like Maya or XSI don't need algorithms to 
work with primitives. They just store the x|y|z coordinates. BTW: to work 
with primitives (CSG) is somewhat outdated. Nowadays most artists use 
boxmodelling, splinecages or something similar. Impossible or very hard to 
do with POV-Rays SDL. To get smoothed results you have to use NURBS, 
subdivision surfaces, Hypernurbs, weighted vertices or whatever. All this 
needs a modeller when you want to get good results because you need the 
optical feedback.

> And as such this action can be recreated in scripting language with
> necessary programing capabilities and set of 3D functions to create
> primitives. The difference is that in modeller everything is 'on-screen'
> in windows while in SDL everything is 'in-manual' and 'in-brain' ;-)

True but misleading. When I make something more complex in Wings3D (a great 
tool!!) then I have to tweak and fine tune a lot. When you use an algorithm 
based language you don't have enough controll to move one vertex by one. 
And you don't want to tell me that you make an object by using a hand coded 
mesh2?
Here is an example I made with Wings a view month ago:

http://www.render-zone.com/wip/rep_man_prev.jpg

This is not realistic of course but try something like this with SDL. I 
needed 5 hours to build it in Wings - it was just a test to figure out how 
Wings works.
Hey, I don't want to start a flame war here. POV-Ray is a great tool but the 
SDL is limited by its concept not by the user. At least under practical 
circumstances.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:

Hi Ingo,

> How many hours did it take DAZ to create Vicky? Does she look realistic?

Well, DAZ modells are more or less close to reality. But you will never be 
able to make something similar with POV-Ray!

Andreas

-- 
http://www.render-zone.com

Post a reply to this message

in news:3ea03fdb@news.povray.org Andreas Kreisig wrote:

> To get smoothed results you have to use NURBS, 
> subdivision surfaces, Hypernurbs, weighted vertices or whatever. All
> this needs a modeller when you want to get good results because you
> need the optical feedback.
> 
> [...] And you don't want to tell me that you make an
> object by using a hand coded mesh2?
> 

This is where you undersetimate SDL. There are macros / include files 
available to generate NURBS surfaces, subdivision surfaces etc. Just like 
you don't draw every single triangle of a model by hand using a GUI, you 
don't need to when using SDL.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message