Program ended abnormally on 06/09/2003 14:00, Due to a catastrophic Tim
Nikias v2.0 error:

> And why is that? I guess, the main part is this:
> IF you have the money for more popular programs,
> you get easy access to more diverse capabilities
> and faster processing of images (as the popular
> programs use 3D-Acceleration Hardware, which
> POV-Ray can't use). 

Huh?  They might use the 3-D acceleration techniques found in your video card to 
display their GUI and stuff, but rendering still happens in the CPU, AFAIK.


Thus, you can spit more
> images in shorter time, and thus, the production
> phase isn't as long as with POV-Ray (just think
> about Radiosity and Photons, focal blur, especially
> fine-tuning those).

Riiiiight.  Radiosity and photons aren't even possible without rendering the 
image in multple passes with most of those expensive packages.

  I might be wrong about the
> production phase being shorter, but that would be
> due to more capabalities, better modelling control
> than via script etc.

Modellers exist for POV.

> Lets face it, POV-Ray is neat and free, its the
> best image-processing "engine" I've seen so far, but
> it has some drawbacks (e.g. scripting interface) which
> just can't compete with popular programs.
> 

YMMV.  I've tried a few of the other packages, and still prefer POV.

> Aside of all that, I always wonder how many people
> posting their stuff actually *own* the programs, rather
> than just "use" them... Can't happen with POV-Ray! :-)
> 

:)

> Regards,
> Tim
> 

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   videotron.ca  */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> And why is that? I guess, the main part is this:
> IF you have the money for more popular programs,
> you get easy access to more diverse capabilities

Um, I'd hazard a guess that MOST of the artists on
Renderosity don't actually own legitimate copies of
the high-end software they're using.

Post a reply to this message

"POVeddie" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.3f59f68cc4c19da9e70293d30@news.povray.org...

   Does it matter? We KNOW the truth...   ;)

    ~Steve~



> Eddie
>

Post a reply to this message

news:3f5a21ef$1@news.povray.org...
> And why is that?

POV-Ray is not used for commercial production purposes (in general). Hence
people who want to enter a career in 3D production are not likely to use it
because it won't get them started (or not for long at least). These folks
need to show their stuff around to get jobs, obtain information about the
industry and see what the competition is : that's what these 3D sites are
all about.
With POV-Ray, most people are hobbyists and this creates a very different
mindset and a very different community. The Poser/Blender/Bryce communities
are closer to this mindset than the MAX/Maya/LW ones, but I'd believe that
POV-Ray is still quite unique in this regard.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

> Huh?  They might use the 3-D acceleration techniques found in your video
card to
> display their GUI and stuff, but rendering still happens in the CPU,
AFAIK.

Well, certain calculations are done on the Graphics
Hardware, e.g. triangle-calculations, Z-Buffering and
such. That's at least what I've learned in my Computer
Graphics Course. After all, the 3D-Hardware is supposed
to do triangle-stuff, why not make use of it?

> Riiiiight.  Radiosity and photons aren't even possible without rendering
the
> image in multple passes with most of those expensive packages.

Still, Radiosity on patches is, AFAIK, faster to calculate
than "our" radiosity, because of the speed in which an
entire image can be produced faster. We've dealt with
radiosity calculations based on triangle in above mentioned
CG-Class. Can you believe that a level 3 radiosity pass
can be made in Realtime? You only lose about 5 fps or so.
(Though this greatly depends on Hardware and Technique
applied).
Photons is a completely different matter, but again, lightmaps
are used very often for this, which may be stored and require
less memory than millions of photons...

> Modellers exist for POV.
Moray? SPatch? Yeah, some do exist. But can they really
compete with Lightwave, Maya, etc? I'm not so sure about
that.
(AFAIK though, Maya has a POV-Ray Plug-In...)

> YMMV.  I've tried a few of the other packages, and still prefer POV.

What does YMMV mean? Aside of that, I have yet to find
a renderer with such a good combination of price vs usability... ;-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01.09.2003

Post a reply to this message

That's what I mentioned at the end of my post.
Who can actually afford 500$+ Software for
CG? And that's talking about one single program!
On Renderosity, I have yet to see one incredible
pic where it doesn't say: Maya/Lightwave/etc with
Post Processing by Photoshop/Combustion/etc, Hair
made with ... background with...


-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01.09.2003

Post a reply to this message

You're right about all that. We're all a bunch
of Nerds (quote =Bob= :-) and its fun. Using
just POV will most probably not get you a
job. Got to be Gilles Tran to earn more than
5 bucks (total) with it. ;-)

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: tim.nikias (@) gmx.de


>
> POV-Ray is not used for commercial production purposes (in general). Hence
> people who want to enter a career in 3D production are not likely to use
it
> because it won't get them started (or not for long at least). These folks
> need to show their stuff around to get jobs, obtain information about the
> industry and see what the competition is : that's what these 3D sites are
> all about.
> With POV-Ray, most people are hobbyists and this creates a very different
> mindset and a very different community. The Poser/Blender/Bryce
communities
> are closer to this mindset than the MAX/Maya/LW ones, but I'd believe that
> POV-Ray is still quite unique in this regard.
>
> G.
>
> -- 
> **********************
> http://www.oyonale.com
> **********************
> - Graphic experiments
> - POV-Ray and Poser computer images
> - Posters
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01.09.2003

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias v2.0 wrote:
> On Renderosity, I have yet to see one incredible
> pic where it doesn't say: Maya/Lightwave/etc with
> Post Processing by Photoshop/Combustion/etc, Hair
> made with ... background with...

I'm always harping on the whole post processing thing
in the one Poser-related dc++ hub I frequent, much to
everyone's annoyance.  In my opinion, postwork is a
crutch if you're doing something with it that could
just as well be done inside the renderer with a little
effort...now, if you're on a deadline for a job, fine,
take all the shortcuts you need; but if you're just
doing the image as a hobby, isn't it more satisfying
to see how much you can accomplish with just your
renderer?  (This is for the people who actually use
real renderers for making their images, and not the
built-into-Poser one :P)

Post a reply to this message

noticias 3f5b3c43$1@news.povray.org...
<snip>
> > Modellers exist for POV.
> Moray? SPatch? Yeah, some do exist. But can they really
> compete with Lightwave, Maya, etc? I'm not so sure about
> that.
> (AFAIK though, Maya has a POV-Ray Plug-In...)

 Modellers for povray?. Almost every 3D$ program can act
as a modeller for povray, if you have crossroads or poseray
(or 3DWin if you go to the shareware side).  You can export
from almost every 3D format to pov.
I have used a lot of programs to model something rendered
later with povray.
If you want to model scenes with great control over povray
SDL (almost complete now via plugins (DirectCode, animation,
isosurfaces p.e.) and including a mesh editor with UV _mapping,
the best option (IMHO) is Moray.
You can also make complete scenes with Hamapatch
(radiosity, photons, lights, textures,...).
It's a shame you cannot use your pov models in other programs
(I'm still waiting for someone who create a converter from
mesh or mesh2 to obj or 3ds.)

I think that the level of knowledge and practice you have with
the program you are using is what really makes the difference
(and usually the amount of work invested in an scene also
counts ;-)

Just my 2 cents.

Txemi Jendrix
http://www.txemijendrix.com

Post a reply to this message

It could also be, that users of POV-Ray are generally more mathmatically
minded people. At least we are forced to be, and even I've come to value
math! But look at  p.binaries.images  and see the amount of images that are
based on something mathematically, which is great, but misses an appealing
light, color and composition. Well, some are newbies and some are WIP's and
this apply to all the world: only a small percentage ends up along true
masterpieces. But still, I think we have a tendency to focus on something
that aren't going to qualify as a "beautiful artistic image".

Even I sometimes feel, there is an abyss between the artist and the
mathematican. Today I use Wings3D for most modelling purposes, because I
think it has a highly efficient graphical interface. But then I'm having
difficulty to suddenly switch back to POV scripting. It takes some hours to
adjust, possibly because my brain has to work in another way; where I don't
immediately see the result of what I'm doing.

In the past, artists worked with simple tools like paper and pencil. And I
know how many artists don't really *think* about what they're doing (they
are unable to, if they're on drugs!) they are just working with their
instincts, feelings, and improvise whatever they're doing. It's a wonder how
something great can come out of this, but...

Moving the mouse around on the screen, comes closer to this, than using the
keyboard. Maybe that's why POV-Ray is shamelessly ignored among many
artistic webpages?

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message