http://www.indigorenderer.com

This Rendering Engine (Indigo Render) is completely Free and is more stable
and sophisticated than Lux Render (but is not open source).

I'm following both (Indigo and Lux) in order to choose my next rendering
engine (I've decided to leave Pov-ray after more ten years of use).

I think that nowadays the "state of the art" in Computer Graphic is
represented by "unbiased rendering".

Pov-Ray is now a rendering engine of the "old" generation and, for what I
see, there is no intention to move forward. The only interest is speed
(reading some furum answers). If I want speed I use GPU rendering (OpenGL
Shading Language: GLSL) which is approaching Pov-Ray quality very fast
(radiosity can be emulated almost in realtime).

Take a look to Indigo Render Gallery:

http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=26

Best Regards

Delle.

P.S. This time no double post ! :-)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'indigo.jpg' (198 KB)

Preview of image 'indigo.jpg'

> Pov-Ray is now a rendering engine of the "old" generation and, for what I
> see, there is no intention to move forward. The only interest is speed
> (reading some furum answers). If I want speed I use GPU rendering (OpenGL
> Shading Language: GLSL) which is approaching Pov-Ray quality very fast
> (radiosity can be emulated almost in realtime).

I wonder what it is that has kept potential developers away from helping 
with POV?

There seem to have been whole renderers written in the time it takes from 
POV to go from 3.6 to 3.7 beta.  Why is this?

I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than using 
a modeller or CAD package.  But TBH I haven't really looked at anything else 
in detail for comparison.

Post a reply to this message

> I wonder what it is that has kept potential developers away from helping
> with POV?
>

Try to make it really "Open source" (load it in Sourceforge) and maybe....

Delle

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:
> I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than 
> using a modeller or CAD package.  

Other modellers have scripting languages too. In Blender you can modify 
your scenes with Python scripts for instance. And you have the graphical 
user interface that helps to arrange the camera, lights etc. without 
doing hundreds of test renderings.

My two eurocents,

Bonsai

-- 
<--------------------------->
    ___ __ __  _ ___ ___  _
   | _ )  \  \( )  _) _ )( )
   | _ \() |\ \ |\ \/ _ \| |
   |___/__/_)\__)___)/ \_)_)

        www.b0n541.net
<--------------------------->

Post a reply to this message

>> I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than 
>> using a modeller or CAD package.
>
> Other modellers have scripting languages too. In Blender you can modify 
> your scenes with Python scripts for instance. And you have the graphical 
> user interface that helps to arrange the camera, lights etc. without doing 
> hundreds of test renderings.

Yeh, although I haven't used the Blender scripting language, I use the one 
in my CAD program regularly to create parametric models that generate 
themselves based on a few core parameters.  For example if you were 
designing an engine, you could have a few variables like number of 
cylinders, cylinder bore, cylinder stroke etc, and then the CAD is 
automatically generated from those.  If you suddenly want to change the 
stroke then it's just a case of changing one number and then it's done.

Actually, come to think about it I remember using the scripting language in 
3D Studio Max.  THat was pretty flexible, allowing you to create and modify 
scene objects, as well as extracting data from them afterwards.  It 
obviously had a real-time 3D scene you could look around (like in Blender), 
and also several renderers built-in if you wanted a high quality output.  I 
guess that is more powerful than SDL, but unfortunately not free!

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:47219b09$1@news.povray.org...

> I wonder what it is that has kept potential developers away from helping
> with POV?
>
> There seem to have been whole renderers written in the time it takes from
> POV to go from 3.6 to 3.7 beta.  Why is this?

Well, on the academic side, unbiased/physical rendering has become feasible.
Actually, there has been somewhat of a split, with the likes of Maxwell on
one side, likes of V-Ray on the other, and finally with Gelato on a league
of its own. Customers demand either extreme quality, or lightning speed
(well, both really, but we are still a few years off from that). POV-Ray's
model is aging, and is neither fast nor high quality, somewhat bloated
requiring too much fudging. SDL that is incompatible with anything else, and
closed source doesn't help matters either. B-rep modelling, whether mesh or
NURBS is also a must, neither animation nor manufacture is easy or natural
with implicit "modelling" as in SDL, which only made sense 20 years ago when
realtime b-rep modelling wasn't feasible on a budget.

Demand drives a product (even free ones), so that would explain POV-Ray's
falling behind the curve.

> I love the SDL in POV, and for me it makes certain tasks quicker than
using
> a modeller or CAD package.

With modern CAD and modelling applications supporting advanced scripting,
that's not quite true. And what is the criterion for speed anyway? Being
able to quickly place 1000 boxes or cylinders in two lines of code is
neither here nor there. Can you seriously outperform a NURBS modeller for
creating an industrial object like an electric shaver with smooth lines? Or
can you outdo likes of ZBrush or MudBox for a detailed character model, by
using CSG and isosurfaces? Pains me to say this, but POV is irrelevant for
modern tasks and occupies a niche market.

The saving grace would be if there were proper exporters/plug-ins for
popular modelling packages, supporting visual materials editors. Then, the
engine would be the focus and SDL a bonus, an option. But that's not going
to happen.

Post a reply to this message

delle <del### [at] ciaowebit> wrote:
> Pov-Ray is now a rendering engine of the "old" generation and, for what I
> see, there is no intention to move forward.

  See, it's exactly this kind of troll-posting which causes so much
aversion towards people spamming about other renderers.

  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

  There have been countless "povray-killers" during its history. Free
renderers which implement some new fad technique which is "the future".
Most of these hyped renderers have completed faded into oblivion. Some
have survived with a small following.

  For some reason the trend whores only see POV-Ray as a 15-years-old
renderer. It's not like POV-Ray never evolved nor implemented any new
techniques. However, the trend whores completely ignore them, and still
want to see POV-Ray as something of the past.

  For example, POV-Ray was one of the first renderers to effectively
implement photon mapping. It didn't help the negative hype.
  POV-Ray has implemented multi-threaded rendering which has received
praise, beating in distributing efficiency even many high-end commercial
renderers. But no avail, it still can't kill the negative hype.
  POV-Ray even went a bit with the trend and implemented HDRI (with two
popular file formats and all). Nope. The negative hype is unmovable.
No matter how much POV-Ray evolves and implements new techniques, some
people will always see it as a renderer of the past which has "no intention
to move forward".

  The current fad is this "unbiased rendering". By all means go ahead and
use some trendy renderer. Just hope it will not die in a couple of years.
Maybe it will become successful, with luck.

  That doesn't mean POV-Ray will never ever implement such algorithms if
they are good.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
> is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
> which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

"doesn't" or "can't"?

>  POV-Ray has implemented multi-threaded rendering which has received
...
>  POV-Ray even went a bit with the trend and implemented HDRI (with two
> popular file formats and all).

"The current official version of POV-Ray is 3.6.1, which was released on 3 
August 2004"

So, in over three years of work we have got beta version support of 
multi-threading and HDRI?  Again, clearly the devs are working very hard, 
but why aren't more people helping like with other renderers?  What is 
turning them away?  What makes POV different to other renderers that have a 
much larger group of people helping write them?

> No matter how much POV-Ray evolves and implements new techniques, some
> people will always see it as a renderer of the past which has "no 
> intention
> to move forward".

Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people to 
help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps they 
will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV keeps 
up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a 
big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for this
> > is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
> > which is being currently fashionable and hyped.

> "doesn't" or "can't"?

  What's that supposed to even mean?

> Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people to 
> help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps they 
> will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV keeps 
> up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a 
> big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.

  That's why POV-Ray 4 will be different.

  My only fear is that the new "design by committee" of pov4 could kill it
in a few years in the exact same way as it has killed so many renderers
before.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> >  POV-Ray is the unfortunate victim of negative hype. One reason for 
>> > this
>> > is that POV-Ray has existed for so long and doesn't jump to every trend
>> > which is being currently fashionable and hyped.
>
>> "doesn't" or "can't"?
>
>  What's that supposed to even mean?

Is it because the development team decided they don't want to jump on any 
trends, or is it that they don't have the man-power to do it in a reasonable 
time-frame?

>> Perhaps just because it moves forwards very slowly.  We need more people 
>> to
>> help develop POV to make use of these new fangled techniques.  Perhaps 
>> they
>> will die out as nobody uses them, perhaps they won't.  But unless POV 
>> keeps
>> up it *will* be seen and known as an "old" renderer.  WHich IMO will be a
>> big shame, as POV certainly does have some cool stuff still to offer.
>
>  That's why POV-Ray 4 will be different.

I hope so :-)

>  My only fear is that the new "design by committee" of pov4 could kill it
> in a few years in the exact same way as it has killed so many renderers
> before.

Just needs a few people with a bit of brains to take charge, as with all 
projects.  It's not exactly the most complicated or largest group project 
ever undertaken.

Post a reply to this message