"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3bc84ecc@news.povray.org...
>
>     Just wondering how many people try to model reality, and how many try
to
> model an appearance of reality. For instance, when you need a crowd of
trees
> in the background, are you more likely to make a bunch of trees, or will
you
> put up an image map of some trees on a box? When trying to make a texture,
> do you make it in detail every time, or do you let it slide if it is too
far
> back for all the normals to be seen?

Having thought about this particular thing many times before I think I might
know my answer by now.
I put things together mostly by building from scratch, only cobbling a scene
together.  However, I've tried a few things which I wanted to be based on
reality as perceived or as photographed or even as measured.  So what
happens is that I create from that primary habit of piecing stuff together
but if the subject is realism, or rather reality, then I use sources to go
by.

>     Since I always tend towards animation, I try to make things real. It
> means that some projects just don't get done. But if I ever want to do a
> walk through of one of my scenes, nothing ends up looking bad from the
other
> side.

Yes, and that's why stage-propping a scene is faster, easier and yet can be
too lacking.

>     Just curious, no intent to disparage either method or assume that
people
> should use one exclusively of another. I just get the feeling that people
> who aren't as hung up on reality are the ones that send us such good
scenes
> more often than others.

The old saying, art for arts sake, but if it doesn't match up with a
preconceived idea it is destined to failure.  Actually that could be
debatable.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message