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

>> 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

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

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

nemesis wrote:

> 
> 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.

I seem to remember a certain image created by a certain member here that 
fooled plenty of people into thinking it was a photo. I takes skill and 
talent, but it can be done.

I think the term you're intending to use here is "more physically 
accurate", which will generally yield photorealistic results.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> 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.

I have to say, I've yet to see any unbaised renders where I instantly 
look and go "wow! POV-Ray could never do that..."

(Or even, "wow that's a really cool picture!" But that could just be 
that my personal taste in pictures differs from those of the people who 
make these things...)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

"LuxRender is better than POV-Ray" is an opinion.

I didn't say POV-Ray *is* better - I just asked you not to call people 
names when they suggest that it might be. People have opinions. That 
doesn't mean that anybody with an opinion different to yours is stupid.

> The more accurate and close to 
> reality it looks, the more photorealistic it is.

False, as demonstrated. Sometimes things "look" wrong when they are in 
fact physically correct. Realism - and anything else involving your eyes 
- is in the eye of the beholder.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Severi Salminen" <sev### [at] NOTTHISsaunalahtifiinvalid> wrote in
message news:47bc568a@news.povray.org...
> "Nothing else than perfect simulation of light". Nope, nothing else ;-)
>

Perfect is a big word.

Does it support gravitational lenses? And variable ior? Are the rays
calculated from the light source?Do scientist completely understand all the
properties of light?

The graininess of this scene reminds me of those obscure ufo photo's ;)

I'd love to see one of Jaime's ufo scenes done like this  =]


--
- Nekar X -

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I seem to remember a certain image created by a certain member here that 
> fooled plenty of people into thinking it was a photo. I takes skill and 
> talent, but it can be done.

ok, let me say it again:  Those images look far more photorealistic than 
*most* povray renders.

Sure, you can endlessly tweak the povray scene or settings in other 
biased renderings to get very photorealistic results.  You may also 
endlessly tweak the light sources and radiosity/photon mapping settings 
to get the illumination just right.  You can do nothing at all about 
aliasing of edges against very bright backdrops.

Or you can just buy top hardware, model, texture and drop accurate 
lighting in your scene and let an unbiased rendering method handle it 
overnight.

Post a reply to this message