 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/30/1716200&tid=152
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Interesting discussion. It seems like many (not all) of the people who say
that POV-Ray can't produce realistic images are the same ones who are aware
that it's a very old program; I wonder if their knowledge that it's an old
program (that was limited in its early days) is causing some bias?
Then there are a lot of people who say things like "Its a good render for
ray tracer but RAY TRACING IS OLD. Radiosity and stocastic renders are much
higher quality then this," who seem to believe that certain algorithms
equate to realistic images, hardly considering the influence of the artist's
skill level - and who aren't even aware that such algorithms are available
in POV-Ray. =)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Photorealism isn't about the renderer. No program can create something
that looks like a photo just by pushing two or three buttons. Any
program that can generate an image can be used to make something which
is photorealistic if the time, effort, skill, and ability of the artist
are enough. Even with MS Paint (though that takes a bit more effort).
One thing the 'photorealistic' 3D graphics considered superior to POV
have: photo-based textures.
Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not
bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior". :P
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1507984
(Was the submitter a member of these newsgroups, I wonder?)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(Oh, actually, they just linked to the HoF.)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Favorite comment:
My God, it's full of math.
Also a lot of these:
Darn... those are pretty impressive. Maybe I'll start learning...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:30:40 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not
> bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior". :P
Feh, that's just /. mentality for you
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
> Then there are a lot of people who say things like "Its a good render for
> ray tracer but RAY TRACING IS OLD. Radiosity and stocastic renders are much
> higher quality then this,"
Yeah. If a rendering algorithm has existed for very long time, that
automatically means that it's old, obsolete and crap.
Too bad this applies to radiosity as well. Depending on how you
define it, the radiosity algorithm can be dated back to the 1960s.
In fact, the theory is even older: The concept of "radiative transfer
theory", which is basically the radiosity algorithm, dates back to 1926.
Thus: Radiosity is almost 80 years old, thus it's crap.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:30:40 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>
>>Another thing that irritates me is the attitude of "it's not
>>bleeding-edge, therefore it's infinitely inferior". :P
>
>
> Feh, that's just /. mentality for you
Agreed. It's funny how /. mentality works. Slashdot is a haven for open
source and free software geeks, but every POV article, they always bash
it by saying "X, Y, and Z is better" (usually Maya).
It also seems that the examples of "photorealistic" images that people
linked to in the discussion were all using HDRI environments, which make
the focus of the scene look realistic, but the background looks faked
(too blurry).
alas... POV rocks. off i go.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In fact, the theory is even older: The concept of "radiative transfer
> theory", which is basically the radiosity algorithm, dates back to 1926.
>
> Thus: Radiosity is almost 80 years old, thus it's crap.
Do you mean that before 1926, a torchiere with an opaque shade casting light
to the ceiling would only illuminate said ceiling, because the photons
weren't aware at that time that they had to bounce off the white surface
and light the whole room ?
;-P
JYR
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
