William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
....
> However, let me argue that case for a moment. Why would you use
> raytracing if you're not after photorealism?

I, too, love working SDL style.  I particularly enjoy seeing what can be
made from CSG, the whole process of going from idea to mathematical
expression to image. I imagine that it's not too much different than the
enjoyment that some other folks get from building a ship in a bottle.  The
process is at least as important as the product.
....
> The main advantage of raytracing over other forms of 3D rendering *is*
> photorealism. It can create realistic shadows, reflections, and global
> illumination.

The same capabilities that allow for high levels of realism allow for a much
wider selection of creative techniques than the alternative methods.  An
artist can specify more or less of a given optical phenomenon than the
level that would be the most realistic in order to achieve a variety of
effects. To be succinct, the same tools that make possible photo-realism
make possible many other things as well.  Also, for anyone who may be
joining this discussion in the middle, I should like to point out that I
have NEVER argued that photo-realism isn't a valid format for artistic
expression, only against the ASSUMPTION that it is MORE valid than other
forms.

To Tek et al:
Thank you for your concern, but I was not in the least offended, as I fully
realized that all the comments were contributed with the intent of being
helpful and appreciated them as such.  As a matter of fact, I chose to
bring up the issue, which had been on my mind for quite some time, in this
place and time specifically because I saw it as an opportunity to discuss
the matter in the context of a civil discourse with people whom I respect.
I believe that ray tracing is in the process of "coming of age" as a true
art form and that, like any art from, its full potential can best be
realized if ALL of its possibilities are explored.

Best Regards to All,
-Mike C.

Post a reply to this message