 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, SDL is limited as there are many things (mostly women and cars)
which are really difficult to describe in it and you cant get imidiate
visual feedback but modelers are as limited as there are also many
things (the grass and the trees) which are best described algorithmically.
I think the best you can do is to combine the two approaches, you
wouldn't want to model a forest but deciding what it will look like by
painting some maps to controll some paramenters adding some noise and
then have a cool forest which although its random is inside the
parameters you wanted it to be is really powerfull.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3ea03fdb@news.povray.org> , Andreas Kreisig <and### [at] gmx de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW: to work
>>with primitives (CSG) is somewhat outdated.
>
>
> No, here you are wrong. It simply happens that CSG is harder to do if you
> don't use plain ray-tracing.
I think even if people used plain raytracing, they wouldn't use CSG as
their primary modelling method.
>And the default renderers shipped with any
> commercial package today do not use plain ray-tracing, but various hybrid
> scanline/ray-tracing methods.
Are you sure? Cinema4d seems to do raytracing and when I last saw it you
could do "zu Grundobjekt konvertieren" when you were doing CSG with
primitives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3ea05673@news.povray.org Timothy R. Cook wrote:
>> How many hours did it take DAZ to create Vicky? Does she look
>> realistic?
>
> Vicky was not built by hand.
I knew that ;)
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3EA06029.C923BFC9@gmx.de Christoph Hormann wrote:
> with increasing computation power
> algorithmically generated geometry will become more and more
> important because the time necessary to model complex things by hand
> will no more be affordable.
>
And in the future POV-Ray will have a groundbreaking DNA{} object. You
yust add the right DNA-sequence to it and the model will be build.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea07c18$1@news.povray.org> , Simon Adameit
<sim### [at] gaussschule-bsde> wrote:
> Are you sure? Cinema4d seems to do raytracing
Yes, it is the closest you can get to plain ray-tracing. Still, it is
hybrid method as it relies at least on various light and reflection tricks;
at least that is what the images suggest when looking closely at light,
shadow and reflection compared to knwon ray-traced images. I actually
downloaded to manual (the whole 42 MB), but it does not say anything about
technical issues at all :-(
> and when I last saw it you
> could do "zu Grundobjekt konvertieren" when you were doing CSG with
> primitives.
That sure sounds like it could have something to do with primitives, but it
is very hard to tell without actually seeing their code...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Timothy R. Cook wrote:
> ingo wrote:
> > How many hours did it take DAZ to create Vicky? Does she look realistic?
>
> Vicky was not built by hand. Vicky was made using a 3d-scanner.
> Hideously expensive to own, not exactly cheap to rent use of one
> either, but that's how they build human meshes that look realistic.
Well, AFAIK the models created by 3d-scanner are only used as a reference to
digitally sculpt a lower resolution mesh that will animate more smoothly or
then the scanned model is used to get a displacement map for a low res cage.
There are also lots of people who make realistic human models 'by hand'.
Steven Stahlberg and Peter Syomka are on the top 10 of my list. It's
actually not even too complicated when you have an app that you can work
with and you know anatomy sufficiently.
--
-Jide
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3ea07c18$1@news.povray.org> , Simon Adameit
> <sim### [at] gaussschule-bsde> wrote:
>
>
>>Are you sure? Cinema4d seems to do raytracing
>
>
> Yes, it is the closest you can get to plain ray-tracing. Still, it is
> hybrid method as it relies at least on various light and reflection tricks;
> at least that is what the images suggest when looking closely at light,
> shadow and reflection compared to knwon ray-traced images.
A friend of mine has it and you have the option of choosing between hard
shadows, shadow map and area light. Might be that the images you mean
were rendered with shadow maps though I dont know what could be the
reflection trick.
>I actually
> downloaded to manual (the whole 42 MB), but it does not say anything about
> technical issues at all :-(
Perhaps their c++ sdk doc can tell you more:
http://www.plugincafe.com/r8sdk/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> I actually
> downloaded to manual (the whole 42 MB), but it does not say anything about
> technical issues at all :-(
I think that's one difference between "professional" commercial renderers
and amateur free ones. :)
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3ea14dcc@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> I actually
>> downloaded to manual (the whole 42 MB), but it does not say anything about
>> technical issues at all :-(
>
> I think that's one difference between "professional" commercial renderers
> and amateur free ones. :)
No, the manual was included in German and English, and there where plenty of
example movies (or something like that, I didn't watch them). So they are
just better cheating ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> In article <3ea14dcc@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >> I actually
> >> downloaded to manual (the whole 42 MB), but it does not say anything about
> >> technical issues at all :-(
> >
> > I think that's one difference between "professional" commercial renderers
> > and amateur free ones. :)
>
> No, the manual was included in German and English, and there where plenty of
> example movies (or something like that, I didn't watch them). So they are
> just better cheating ;-)
Actually I think Warp was referring to the fact that the documentation from a
commercial rendering package never discusses the technology behind how it works
whereas POV-Ray (an amateur free program) does an excellent job of it.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
