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

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

the povanim script works just fine with Blender.  It comes with a nice 
settings graphical interface and I usually just export to pov files, but 
you can also directly call povray to render it.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> "LuxRender is better than POV-Ray" is an opinion.

are you suggesting I said that?  can you point it out, then?

> 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.

like I said, photorealism is not a matter of opinion.

> False, as demonstrated. Sometimes things "look" wrong when they are in 
> fact physically correct.

like?...

of course, photorealism originally meant "realist like a photo" and this 
is not quite what raytracers and other renderers mean by it.  Because if 
they did, perhaps they should include lens distortion, glare and other 
effects only really seen through photographic lenses...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:44:59 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> like I said, photorealism is not a matter of opinion.

Sure it is.  It all depends on one's perception of the image.  You might 
look at an image and say "gee, that looks really photorealistic", and I 
might respond "are you on drugs?  Look at that shadow, that's clearly not 
right".  You might disagree about that particular shadow (whatever it is).

Have you ever been to a movie with someone who thinks the CG effects are 
outstanding and "the most realistic effects they'd ever seen", only to 
tell them that they were crap effects?

Same principle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> You can do nothing at all about 
> aliasing of edges against very bright backdrops.

Yes you can, go back to a POV-Ray version that clipped colors *before* 
antialiasing.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:44:59 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> like I said, photorealism is not a matter of opinion.
> 
> Sure it is.  It all depends on one's perception of the image.  You might 
> look at an image and say "gee, that looks really photorealistic", and I 
> might respond "are you on drugs?  Look at that shadow, that's clearly not 
> right".  You might disagree about that particular shadow (whatever it is).

if I saw at a sharp shadow and said it was photorealistic, I'd sure be 
on drugs. ;)

> Have you ever been to a movie with someone who thinks the CG effects are 
> outstanding and "the most realistic effects they'd ever seen", only to 
> tell them that they were crap effects?

People's opinions on whether something is photorealistic is irrelevant 
as to whether it is or not.  The only way to test it out would be to 
take a photo, model a scene similar to it and render.  Then diff the 
render and the photo.

Post a reply to this message