47bc54c3$1@news.povray.org...
> I dunno, These types of renderers do have some interesting applications, I
> could see an architect using them to do a true physical light simulation
> on a building design, using various lighting schemes/time of day, etc..
> But for creating "photorealistic" rendered images, my bets are still on
> raytracers, they're not a physically accurate simulation, but they do a
> decent approximation.

Commercial unbiased renderers are now quite common for product design and
architecture visualisation. For a production house, it's just cheaper to add
a few CPUs (or to rent some time from a render farm) than to spend time
tweaking the GI.

Of course, the latest crop of raytracers/GI engines like Vray or FinalRender
do a fantastic job (speed + quality) but from my experience with
FinalRender - think POV-Ray on steroids - this comes with a hefty price =
dozens of abstract, often arcane parameters to speed up things and prevent
artifacts. Right now these renderers are quite perfect for most jobs
(particularly for animation where speed matters a lot) but in a few years
and some extra cores later, I can see the machines catching up with the
speed requirements of unbiased renderers. In fact, I just saw on TV a
animated commercial rendered with MaxwellRender, so the benefits of this
kind of engine are already there.

G.


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

Post a reply to this message

Me wants PoV-Ray on steroids

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen <sev### [at] notthissaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote:
> But what is the problem with OpenGL?

  ATI.

> And for web page buttos, GIMP might also be a good candidate.

  It would take me something like 5 minutes to make a good-looking 3D button
with POV-Ray. With the Gimp it would probably take me at least 1 hour, and
it still wouldn't look as good.

  POV-Ray is simply a great tool to create "3D'ish" images like those.
It's easy and fast.

> Ok, got me on that one :) Yes, rendering web page buttons with brute
> force renderer is like killing a mosquito with a nuke. I don't know how
> common it is to use POV for creating web page buttons, though...

  I use POV-Ray relatively often to create small images for different
things, for example at my payjob. It's great for making proof-of-concept
type small images (until the graphical designers make the final versions).

> Care to show what kind of buttons you mean?

  I don't have a concrete example right now.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:39:24 -0500, delle wrote:

> LuxRender is a Free, Open Source and heavily modified GPL

Where do we find the source code?

I use openSUSE, you don't have packages for that distribution.

Thanks,

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
>  But for creating "photorealistic" rendered images, my bets
> are still on raytracers

this is pure fanboyism.  Those images look far more photorealistic than 
most povray renders, despite their users not being geeks constantly 
tweaking a text file.

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
> Me wants PoV-Ray on steroids 
> 
> 
me wants SDL on steroids. ;)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It would take me something like 5 minutes to make a good-looking 3D button
> with POV-Ray. With the Gimp it would probably take me at least 1 hour, and
> it still wouldn't look as good.

weird, it comes with a couple of scripts designed specifically for that, 
so that you just pick a color from a pallete, write the text and it get 
it done to you in, what?, 2 seconds?

But inkscape is becoming increasingly better than bitmaps for that kind 
of stuff.

>   POV-Ray is simply a great tool to create "3D'ish" images like those.
> It's easy and fast.

so, pov-ray will end up its days as a 3D button design tool?  Are 
pov-ray users ok with that evolutionary idea?

Post a reply to this message

"delle" <del### [at] ciaowebit> wrote in message 
news:web.47bc2ad9b014483d27eef15b0@news.povray.org...


> Speaking about "low quality", my Nvidia card can play Crysis at 30 fps ... 
> the
> quality is quite good...

  Nice to see a Crysis fan around here. :) That's low quality on your card??

  I think I get around 24 fps with my nV 6600 on my xpPC, which is very 
playable on low, (and Crysis' 'low' settings had been compared to FarCry's 
'medium' settings in one post on crymod.com, and, I would agree). As for 
your image, well, actually, that's the best image I've seen produced with 
Crysis so far, and trust me, I've seen nearly all of them - hundreds and 
hundreds of them, all over the place.  ;)

        If that's a still of your own CE2 map, good work.

         ~Steve~



>
> ;-)
>
> Delle
>

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote in message 
news:47bc69dc@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Me wants PoV-Ray on steroids
> me wants SDL on steroids. ;)

  Well, yeah, that as well...  :)

    ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> wrote in message 
news:47bc6c1f@news.povray.org...

> so, pov-ray will end up its days as a 3D button design tool?  Are pov-ray 
> users ok with that evolutionary idea?

  Damn, no!  >:o(

  ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message