 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v7
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:02:32
Message: <47bc7948$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:06:00
Message: <47bc7a18$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: St
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:06:09
Message: <47bc7a21@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now wipe that sweat off your brow...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:07:31
Message: <47bc7a73@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:09:08
Message: <47bc7ad4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:10:56
Message: <47bc7b40$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:02:34 +0000, 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.
>
> 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".
Nicely said, Andy. Couldn't have said it better myself. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:47bc7919@news.povray.org...
> Tie this with the SDL and the ability to render directly from Blender and
> then we'd have a killer product...
'PoVBlend' - <Gulp!>
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v7
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:12:50
Message: <47bc7bb2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
My point is that somebody having a different opinion to you does not
automatically make them an idiot.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:18:54
Message: <47bc7d1e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> My point is that somebody having a different opinion to you does not
> automatically make them an idiot.
photorealism is not a matter of opinion. The more accurate and close to
reality it looks, the more photorealistic it is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: New LuxRender web site (http://www.luxrender.net)
Date: 20 Feb 2008 14:21:49
Message: <47bc7dcd$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> 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.
And the bandwagon for unbiased isn't?
Most of what I've seen can easily be achieved faster by a raytracer with
a good global illumination engine and good use of materials. Some
things are not quite so easy to come by using traditional techniques.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
