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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:01:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> 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. ;)

Now I didn't necessarily say a sharp shadow, did I?

>> 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.

I've seen photos that don't look photorealistic to me.  It most certainly 
is a matter of opinion.

You might opt to take a - shall we say - religious view towards your 
correctness; that doesn't mean you're right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:01:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> 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.
> You might opt to take a - shall we say - religious view towards your 
> correctness; that doesn't mean you're right. ;-)

I'd say that's a technical stance.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:17:04 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:01:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>> 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.
>> You might opt to take a - shall we say - religious view towards your
>> correctness; that doesn't mean you're right. ;-)
> 
> I'd say that's a technical stance.

You measure photorealism in one way - and that's fine.  Doesn't mean 
that's the way everyone measures it.

For one thing, your view of photorealism depends on the scene actually 
being able to be photographed.  So, for example, how would you do a 
photorealism check on, say, Battlestar Pegasus?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Am I incorrect if I get the impression that these unbiased renderers
> offer nothing else than unbiased rendering? In other words, even the
> simplest of scenes will take hours to look ungrainy, no matter what
> you do?

I know of at least one (Kerkythea) that supports unbiased rendering as well as
other methods; you select the rendering algorithm you want to use from a list,
which includes conventional raytracing. You can't mix methods within the same
render, of course.

I don't find it surprising that most of these apps focus on one particular
rendering algorithm, though, considering the effort it takes to get even one of
them right, with features that make such apps useful.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 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.

If you buy top hardware, model, texture, and drop accurate lighting in 
your scene, PoV can do it, too.

The trick is the accurate lighting.  It's not impossible to do in PoV.

And sometimes, you want something that's intentionally inaccurate. 
(Ever put a diffuse value of, say, 1000 on a texture in a radiosity 
scene?  How about negative-intensity light sources?  Negative value for 
fade power?)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message