Mike Thorn wrote:
> 
> Personally, I would classify most of the HOF as "high end" quality.

Depends I guess on what you mean by "high end". There are some great 
pictures in POV, and I consider what a person can do with a "normal" 
resources to be more interesting than "high end" stuff.

*BUT* There is a whole other level. Don't know if you're American or 
have ever seen the show "American Hotrod". You can build a very nice 
hotrod with some wrenches, paint, and bondo in your garage, but the cars 
on that show are the products of tens or even hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, hundreds of man-hours, and hundred thousand dollar fabricating 
machines. I think it's completely ridiculous to *have* a million dollar 
hotrod, but that doesn't diminish my respect for the talent of the men 
who *built* it. To these guys, there are no limitations. A very advanced 
amateur might be able to chop a roof, but the guys on "American Hotrod" 
can build a new roof from scratch. They don't pick out rims, they make 
them. *This* is "high end".

That being said, there's no reason that a person or group of people 
using POV-Ray with a sufficient amount of RAM and time wouldn't 
conceivably be able to produce something high end. It just hasn't 
happened yet.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Mike Thorn wrote:
>
> > I'm open to other reasons, but I think m1j nailed it: corps and
> > mainstream high-end artists think that it's worthless because there's no
> > price tag specifically designed to blow holes in their socks.
> >
> No I must disagree.  The high-end programs support so much that is
> necessary for collaborative, production work that your line of thinking
> is off base.  Ambitious artists are going to show their talents on
> commercial production tools naturally, but I realize you understand that
> part.  But POV does not get ignored because it is free.  It is simply
> not a tool for collaborative production work.  And I could think of more
> reasons.  Like that when you want to tap into a talent pool, as an
> employer, you also have to keep an eye to what that talent pool is
> trained to do.  And I don't just me a particular interface, but a whole
> range of technical norms like shaders and texture mapping for instance.

Well I have to agree with a lot of the posts here. In both directions. It is
not only because POV is free that it gets ignored. It does play a roll. As
I started this thread with the SDL has the power to fill the HIGH-END roll
if some changes where made. Povray alone is more of an Artist tool. If the
right changes where made to the SDL and a push to make it a standard used
by a number of engines and application POVRay would then be a small part of
a more elaborate production. Now it seems to fall outside the loop in most
productions.

An example of what I am talking about:
RIB format has no coding tools. No string function. No while loops. Or any
number of other tools. Maya uses a programming language as the root of its
activity. MEL. From what I have seen even when you use the GUI the script
is written in the back ground for you. In fact you can copy and replay the
script later to build the very same scene. Just like POVSDL. MEL is
embedded in Maya and is not a standard. Lightwave has LScript but that is
an interface tool not the root for the scene. Same with Max. I am not sure
about MentalRay and its interface Language. Now imaging if there was one
common 3D scene description language that many different programs connected
to. You could hand script part of the scene and pass it onto another app
that allowed materials to be built with a GUI and then onto an animation
tool that would set everything in motion. Pixar has built this very thing
but for their own use and they do not seem to be sharing much. That could
be where the wonderful idea and achievement of POVRay could step in and
bring this to the rest of us. Moray has started part of it but there is
still more to be done if that is the direction POVRay is to be headed. Like
I said this was just some thoughts I was having. I would really like to see
it all done in the spirit of POVRay. TOTALLY FREE but better then the rest.

Post a reply to this message

I see what you mean.  Still, MEL is very powerful allowing one to 
program the GUI itself, no?  And meanwhile there is still the node-based 
development model supported in Maya and others that the POV development 
environment doesn't come close to.  But my main objection to Mike's post 
was to the idea that cost prejudices behavior in a major way.

But on that point, apon further thought, I will concede a bit.  I think 
it is true that a producer managing a project, takes a big risk trying 
something new, and perhaps even a bigger risk if that something is free 
.  It's contradictory, but in the corporate corridors, if you try 
something new and fail, your backside is somehow safer if you payed and 
lost big money, taking what was apparently the "quality" route.

Post a reply to this message

m1j wrote:
> 
> An example of what I am talking about:
> RIB format has no coding tools. No string function. No while loops. Or
> any number of other tools.

http://cgkit.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html

from the link:
The Python Computer Graphics Kit is a collection of modules that contain 
the basic types and functions to be able to create 3D computer graphics 
images. The most important things to mention are the new types, such as 
vectors, matrices and quaternions and the RenderMan binding to create 
the input for a RenderMan compliant renderer.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:41a39977$1@news.povray.org...
> m1j wrote:
> >
> > An example of what I am talking about:
> > RIB format has no coding tools. No string function. No while loops. Or
> > any number of other tools.
>
> http://cgkit.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html
>
> from the link:
> The Python Computer Graphics Kit is a collection of modules that contain
> the basic types and functions to be able to create 3D computer graphics
> images. The most important things to mention are the new types, such as
> vectors, matrices and quaternions and the RenderMan binding to create
> the input for a RenderMan compliant renderer.
>
>   -Shay

Now this sounds good. I will have to take a look at this. I have never
looked at python though I have heard of it. Perhaps a set of libraries for
pov connectivity would be a direction. I was thinking of something like
JavaScript/Actionscript style. In fact ActionScript was what gave me the
idea. It is JavaScript with flash objects.

Post a reply to this message

m1j wrote:
> 
> Now this sounds good. I will have to take a look at this.

Of course, POV SDL could also be used to produce RIB files. I've been 
working on a project that is all hand-coded meshes. After I have done 
whatever I need to do to the data for a mesh object, I send that ddata 
over to one of a few macros that print out a mesh2 definition for my 
object. It would be straightforward to rewrite those macros to print out 
a RIB mesh object. Textures, of course, would not translate as easily.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:41a2cb6b$1@news.povray.org...
> Mike Thorn wrote:
> > I believe m1j has a point. I think there's a widespread idea in the
> > high-end world that just because POV is free, it's junk.
>
> I think slow speed of renders that can be done relatively quickly with
> corner cutting in mainstream applications has more to do with it.  Pure
> raytracing is hopelessly inefficient, relegating POV to hobbyists and
> specialized applications where other methods are too cumbersome.
>
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

but there is some quality to purely raytraced images that other types of
renders don't have. for some reason, watching even the most simple raytraced
animation always makes me drool. mechanical simulations and particle
simulations in pov? man, that smoke simulation posted in p.b.animations not
too long ago made my jaw drop.

Post a reply to this message