 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
... you can't help but notice rendering flaws in multi-million dollar CGI
movies. In particular, see this frame from Kung Fu Panda:
http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/KungfuPanda_reflection.jpg
The people at DreamWorks with their multi-million software and hardware
and multi-millions budgets can't make a simple reflection right? I wonder
if they are doing that *on purpose*, for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure
their renderer would support physically correct reflections.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 17:27:07
Message: <4a5ba6ab$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> if they are doing that *on purpose*, for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure
I'm guessing either it's faster to not take into account the camera angle,
or it's aesthetic, in that viewers expect to see the important part of the
scene reflected like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 18:04:20
Message: <4a5baf64$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> if they are doing that *on purpose*, for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure
>
>
> I'm guessing either it's faster to not take into account the camera
> angle, or it's aesthetic, in that viewers expect to see the important
> part of the scene reflected like that.
>
Okay, I bite. You say there is no way to place and angle the cleaver to
get that refection?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 18:28:48
Message: <4a5bb520$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Okay, I bite. You say there is no way to place and angle the cleaver to
> get that refection?
Sure. Just not from that camera angle. The tip of the beak isn't going to be
across from the reflection of the tip of the beak if the camera is below the
table edge and the cleaver is anywhere close to vertical, methinks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 21:19:49
Message: <4a5bdd35$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> Okay, I bite. You say there is no way to place and angle the cleaver
>> to get that refection?
>
>
> Sure. Just not from that camera angle. The tip of the beak isn't going
> to be across from the reflection of the tip of the beak if the camera is
> below the table edge and the cleaver is anywhere close to vertical,
> methinks.
>
What if the cleaver is in the foreground quite ahead of the beak
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 22:16:03
Message: <4a5bea63@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> What if the cleaver is in the foreground quite ahead of the beak
Even worse, I think. Then it's closer to the camera, and you should be
seeing even more ceiling. I.e., if it's farther ahead of the beak, it's
farther *away* from the beak.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Attwood
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 13 Jul 2009 22:41:58
Message: <4a5bf076$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I understand that they rely heavily on environment
mapping, therefore multiple pass renders. A
reflection might depend on the camera being
the same in all passes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Charter
Subject: Re: You have been raytracing for too long when...
Date: 14 Jul 2009 02:43:19
Message: <4a5c2907$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
>
>> What if the cleaver is in the foreground quite ahead of the beak
>
>
> Even worse, I think. Then it's closer to the camera, and you should be
> seeing even more ceiling. I.e., if it's farther ahead of the beak, it's
> farther *away* from the beak.
>
the scale of the reflection does seem a little suspicious, yes
I know when I am out driving in the city with so many reflective
surfaces around I notice reflections that seem odd. And I realize that
if I had raytraced an image and gotten that same effect I would tend not
to believe the raytracer because normally the selective nature of our
perception would override it. Things like seeing the mechanics of the
underside of a car reflected perfectly in a puddle or reflections within
reflections that you think couldn't possibly happen given the angles
involved.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
