Warp escribió:
>   For this reason even if POV-Ray in the future supports unbiased rendering,
> it should always be an *alternative* method of rendering, not the only
> available one. Removing the current phongshading-based rendering would be
> a setback in many areas. After all, POV-Ray is not *always* used for
> physical simulations of reality.
> 

I believe I suggested that during the POV-Ray 4 discussions. Some way to 
change the whole renderer while keeping SDL parser, ray-shape 
intersections, etc. Just add a whole new renderer and it will work with 
almost all existing POV scenes.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know how common it is to use POV for creating web page
> buttons, though...
> 

I have done it, and the buttons glowed on mouse over. Button above and 
below reflected the glow too. So many images for the nav bar - what a 
waste of bandwidth...

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> Brute-force rendering may generate more *physically correct* renderings
>> - but that does not necessarily correlate with "better looking" results.
>> Anybody who's been doing 3D graphics for more than a few days will
>> quickly figure that one out. ;-)
> 
> You are correct: I was really talking about photorealistim. But I don't
> think brute-force means you couldn't exaggerate things or create
> effects. It just means that the results are more accurate looking. Of
> course, if you want to have a large area light which casts sharp
> shadows...or transparent objects that create full shadows. :) I wouldn't
> consider that a big loss.

And *I* was merely pointing out that "more scientifically correct" 
doesn't in any way directly correlate with "better looking". ;-)

[For example, take a sphere and make it reflective. It still doesn't 
*look* reflective until you give it something to reflect. Indeed, 
sometimes I feed scenes into POV-Ray, and they actually LOOK WRONG, even 
though they are of course correct. The human eye is funny like that...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message 
news:47bc776a$1@news.povray.org...

>>   For this reason even if POV-Ray in the future supports unbiased 
>> rendering,
>> it should always be an *alternative* method of rendering, not the only
>> available one. Removing the current phongshading-based rendering would be
>> a setback in many areas. After all, POV-Ray is not *always* used for
>> physical simulations of reality.
>>
>
> I believe I suggested that during the POV-Ray 4 discussions. Some way to 
> change the whole renderer while keeping SDL parser, ray-shape 
> intersections, etc. Just add a whole new renderer and it will work with 
> almost all existing POV scenes.

    I haven't said anything yet, but I have high hopes for 4.0. It should be 
the icing on the cake.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

47bc633d@news.povray.org...
>  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).

Well I've been using POV-Ray in that fashion too, and it's still not a very 
good argument, particularly as there are tools much better suited to this 
kind of task, including open source ones like GIMP and Inkscape. That you do 
not know how to use them is a problem on your side ;) In any case, an 
unbiased renderer wouldn't have much trouble rendering small 
proof-of-concept-type small images fast enough.

A better argument for maintaining separate rendering engines (all using SDL) 
would be the ability to switch between them depending on the user's needs, 
for instance :

- unbiased renderer
- superfast raytracing/GI engine, VRay-type
- sketch/cell renderer

Tie this with the SDL and the ability to render directly from Blender and 
then we'd have a killer product...

G.


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

Post a reply to this message

>>  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.

Irony, much?

You say it's pure prejustice, and then post an unsubstanciated rant 
that, in your own opinion, unbaised renders all look "better". Hmm. Cute.

If you think unbaised renderers are better, you're entitled to your 
opinion. Just stop saying that anybody who dares to disagree is 
automatically a "fanboy".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

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.

I'm a povray fanboy and proud of it. So what.

Post a reply to this message

Now wipe that sweat off your brow...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 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.
> 
> Irony, much?
> 
> You say it's pure prejustice, and then post an unsubstanciated rant 
> that, in your own opinion, unbaised renders all look "better". Hmm. Cute.

I didn't say "better".  I said "more photorealistic".  And they are.

Perhaps, yes, more artistic license and less photorealism may yield 
better looking pictures.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I'm a povray fanboy and proud of it. So what.

and I'm just about as much of a povray fanboy and geek as anyone else 
here.  It just isn't enough to get me blind, though.

Post a reply to this message